Case: McClendon v. City of Albuquerque

6:95-cv-00024 | U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico

Filed Date: Jan. 10, 1995

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On January 10, 1995, detainees at the Bernalillo County Detention Center (BCDC) in Albuquerque, New Mexico filed this class-action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiffs sued the BCDC under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1986, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d), alleging that gross overcrowding and racial discrimination at the jail violated the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Thir…

On January 10, 1995, detainees at the Bernalillo County Detention Center (BCDC) in Albuquerque, New Mexico filed this class-action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiffs sued the BCDC under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1986, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d), alleging that gross overcrowding and racial discrimination at the jail violated the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments along with 18 U.S.C. §§ 242, 245, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. § 3766), the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 (31 U.S.C. § 1242), the Public Works Employment Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 6727), and various federal regulations. They sought injunctive and declaratory relief; on February 16, 1995, they moved for a preliminary injunction enjoining the operation of the BCDC in its present condition.

The parties engaged in abbreviated discovery related to overcrowding in preparation for a hearing on the preliminary injunction. A day before the hearing, District Judge Martha Vazquez made an unannounced visit to the jail, where she observed, among other things, prisoners sleeping on the floor on mattresses and a strong smell of urine coming from some cells. On August 23, 1995, she granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction requiring the jail to reduce its population. From the start, the jail had conceded that crowding was a problem, and the preliminary injunction largely adopted the jail’s own population reduction proposal. (Because the jail was cooperative, and because the jail could qualify for additional funding if it avoided a ruling that conditions at the jail were unconstitutional, the court opted not to find conditions unconstitutional, but rather deferred that determination for a later time.) The injunction included a schedule of decreasing population caps for the BCDC, and detailed conditions concerning daily operation of the facility. The order also required that any detainee with a psychological impairment must be housed separately from the general population until a qualified mental health professional issued a written report stating that they could safely live in the general population.

On September 7, 1995, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, which the district court approved. The agreement converted the preliminary injunction into a permanent injunction and, among other things, required the jail to comply with its own existing policies regarding medical, dental and psychological services and access to a reasonably current law library. The defendants also stipulated to certification of a class defined as the "present and future residents of BCDC." The district court retained jurisdiction to enforce or modify the injunction.

One day prior, on September 6, 1995, lawyers working for the New Mexico Protection & Advocacy System and the American Civil Liberties Union moved to intervene on behalf of a proposed subclass of all present and future residents of the BCDC with mental and/or developmental disabilities. On October 26, 1995, the district court granted “limited intervention” to the plaintiff-intervenors. Intervention was limited to matters “before the court by virtue of the original Plaintiffs’ Complaint.”

On November 22, 1995, the plaintiff-intervenors filed an amended complaint on behalf of the proposed subclass. It alleged that the jail was discriminating against people with disabilities, in violation of the Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.), and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. They also alleged violations of the equal protection rights of female class members, and violations of procedural due process, the right of access to courts, and the Eighth Amendment.

In early 1996, in an effort to meet the population caps imposed by the September 7, 1995 settlement agreement, the defendants started housing prisoners in makeshift off-site facilities while a new, enlarged facility was under construction. On March 22, 1996, the court ordered that before using an interim facility to house prisoners, the defendants must allow the plaintiffs’ counsel to tour the proposed facility. The defendants appealed this order; the Tenth Circuit granted a stay pending appeal on April 2, 1996. 79 F.3d 1014. Ultimately, the Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal as moot on November 15, 1996. 100 F.3d 863. (In the meantime, the defendants had completed the new facility, so they were no longer using interim holding sites.)

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (42 U.S.C. § 1997e) became effective in April 1996. This statute imposed detailed requirements on federal courts when hearing challenges to conditions in jails and prisons, and it allowed for the termination of certain types of court orders which were issued prior to the enactment of the statute. The defendants moved to terminate the orders that the district court had issued in this case; under the PLRA, the court then had 30 days to make findings of unconstitutional behavior by the defendants, or the court’s prior orders would be automatically stayed until the court made such findings. (The district court had, of course, deferred ruling on the constitutionality of the defendants’ behavior in order to preserve access to funding that was supposed to help the defendants improve conditions at the jail.) On October 29, 1996, the court held that the automatic stay provision of the PLRA was unconstitutional, as a violation of the constitutional principle of separation of powers (the court’s reasoning was later abrogated by the Supreme Court in Miller v. French). The previous orders were therefore not automatically stayed, and the court proceeded to consider whether to issue the PLRA-required findings in response to the defendants’ motion to terminate the prior orders. 29 F. Supp. 2d 1267.

The defendants’ motion was finally resolved on January 10, 1997, when the court approved two settlement agreements and adopted them as consent decrees. In the first of these two decrees (the “PLRA Order”), the court found (as required by the PLRA) that prisoners’ federal rights had been violated by the jail. The court required the jail to implement remedial measures designed to address the needs of inmates with mental illness and/or mental disabilities, particularly with regard to diagnosis and medical treatment. These consent decrees resulted in dismissal with prejudice of all the plaintiffs’ claims, except for the female class members’ claims regarding equal protection and access to courts. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreements.

Between 1997 and 2003 the County made efforts to reduce the jail population, but the BCDC remained overcrowded. In September 2000, the court entered an order finding that the jail had been in violation of the PLRA Order’s population cap for eleven of the preceding twelve months, with the population at times approaching the dangerously high levels that had led to the 1995 injunction. The court ordered the jail to comply with the PLRA Order, and to consider and implement other measures to reduce the BCDC population.

The defendants responded by constructing a new facility, the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC), which was completed in the summer of 2003. By June 17, 2003, all detainees housed at the BCDC had been transferred to the MDC. On July 11, 2003, the court ruled that the previous orders now applied to the MDC, and that the court had continuing jurisdiction to enforce those orders. 272 F. Supp. 2d 1250.

On October 10, 2003, the city and county moved to vacate the PLRA Order under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) and (6). They also asked the court to reconsider its decision to exercise jurisdiction over the MDC, arguing that the PLRA Order had been directed at the BCDC, and should not be applied to the MDC.

In 2005, while that motion was pending, the parties entered into two additional settlement agreements, which the court adopted. The defendants had signed an Intergovernmental Agreement with the federal government, agreeing to use the now-vacated BCDC (renamed the Regional Corrections Center or RCC) to house federal prisoners. The plaintiffs agreed that since the city and county were not responsible for the federal prisoners housed at the now-RCC, that jail would no longer be covered by this litigation. However, the plaintiffs later discovered that under the Intergovernmental Agreement, the city and county had actually assumed certain responsibilities for prisoner welfare at the RCC. In light of the defendants’ misrepresentation, the plaintiffs asked the court to withdraw its approval for the 2005 agreement, and to reassume jurisdiction over the RCC. The court did so on March 31, 2009, concluding that the inmates at the RCC were potential class members because the county had maintained operational control over the facility. In withdrawing its approval of the 2005 settlement agreement, the court gave the plaintiffs the option to rescind that agreement, which they did the following month (April 2009). The defendants appealed this decision to the Tenth Circuit.

They also moved to disqualify Judge Vazquez. In their April 21, 2009 motion to disqualify, the defendants alleged that Judge Vazquez had had ex parte communications regarding this case with several people. They also alleged that Judge Vazquez’s sister-in-law had been incarcerated at the MDC multiple times, most recently in March 2009, shortly before the withdrawal of the 2005 settlement agreement.

Judge Vazquez recused herself from the case on May 18, 2009, and the case was reassigned to Judge James A. Parker the following day. In her order of recusal, Judge Vazquez accused the County of maliciously misrepresenting facts in order to gain a tactical advantage in the litigation; their motion, she explained, was filed because they disagreed with her March 31, 2009 order, not because there was any reason for her to recuse. “The County’s Motion is a blatant attempt to malign and discredit the Court in an effort to achieve its objective of having this Court removed from the present case.” Regarding the defendants’ allegations that she had had ex parte communications, she wrote that the defendants’ counsel “either lacks a basic understanding of this common legal principle, or knowingly misuses the phrase to incite distrust in this Court’s impartiality. Either explanation is unacceptable for a licensed attorney obligated to uphold the New Mexico Rules of Professional Conduct.” The County’s failure to file the motion 2 years earlier, and instead to wait to file it immediately after it received a disfavor able ruling from the court, was evidence that the County was unethically abusing recusal for tactical advantage. Still, she found that the County had succeeded in making it appear that she was not impartial, and she therefore granted the motion for recusal.

Nearly two years later, on January 12, 2011, the Tenth Circuit (Judge Neil Gorsuch) ruled that the defendants could not bring an interlocutory appeal because the withdrawal of the settlement agreement was not a final decision within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 630 F.3d 1288.

On December 7, 2011, the court appointed three experts and asked them to evaluate conditions at the MDC in the areas listed in the 2005 settlement agreements.

On February 26, 2013, after receiving reports from the three experts on conditions at the MDC, which had become dangerously overcrowded, the court ordered the city and the county to appear and show cause why the MDC should not cease “[h]ousing female residents, who have not been classified or who have different classifications, in the same Segregation housing unit.” On the day of that hearing, the parties agreed to alter the conditions for female inmates at the MDC. This pattern repeated itself in a May settlement agreement that required the county to draft a plan addressing a host of issues, ranging from double-celling to out-of-cell time, and to implement the plan before September 1, 2013.

The court referred to the February and May agreements as the 2013 Stipulated Orders. On July 24, 2013, the court issued another order to show cause, requiring the county to show how it had complied with the 2013 Stipulated Orders. At a hearing on August 8, 2013, it became clear that the county had failed to comply with the 2013 Stipulated Orders in several areas; on August 19, the plaintiffs asked the court to find the defendants in contempt.

On April 25, 2014, the county filed a motion to terminate some of the court’s prior orders under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. On May 12, 2014, the court entered an order incorporating many of the provisions of prior orders and also requiring the county to create an Emergency Population Management Plan in cooperation with the Criminal Justice Review Commission (CJRC) to ensure that the population at the MDC remained at or under 1,950. The order contained provisions for the court’s experts to resolve disputes over implementation of the order’s requirements.

On September 23, 2014, the court ordered three experts to evaluate the conditions of confinement at the MDC and to determine whether the county was in compliance with each provision of the previous orders.

At a status conference on March 10, 2015, the court asked the parties to develop a plan for disengagement of court oversight and for eventual dismissal of the lawsuit. The parties worked with Special Master Alan C. Torgerson (who before his retirement had been the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case) to develop a settlement agreement that would bring the litigation to an end while ensuring that positive changes in conditions at the MDC would become permanent.

After months of negotiations with the Special Master, the parties submitted a settlement agreement, and the court granted final approval on June 27, 2016. This agreement described eight domains in which the county was required to meet specified standards:

  1. Medical Services
  2. Mental Health Services
  3. Operations Group A
  4. Operations Group B
  5. Population Management
  6. Housing and Segregation
  7. Sexual Misconduct
  8. Use of Force and Internal Investigations
The standards established in these domains contained nearly every substantive requirement of the court’s previous orders.

Under the settlement agreement, once the court found the County in initial compliance with the relevant set of requirements, the County would then “self-monitor” for an additional court-specified period of time. While self-monitoring, the County was required to submit quarterly reports to the appropriate expert monitor and to counsel for the plaintiffs. At the conclusion of the self-monitoring period, the experts would conduct a “Check-Out Audit” and make a finding of compliance using standards detailed in each Check-Out Agreement. Based on the county’s reports and on the experts’ proposed findings, the court would vacate its order as to that particular domain.

Finally, once the County demonstrated substantial compliance with all eight of the domains, the court would enter a permanent injunction containing the following provisions:

  1. the population of the MDC would be limited to the operational capacity of the MDC (which at the time was 1,950);
  2. no inmates would be triple-celled;
  3. no inmates would sleep in day rooms, except for detoxification units;
  4. high-risk or security-threat inmates or inmates requiring segregation would not be double-celled with other inmates unless determined to be compatible;
  5. segregated inmates who were in protective custody or new intakes could be double-celled if it was determined that they were low risk and compatible; and
  6. unclassified inmates would not be housed with segregated inmates.
The settlement also stated that any permanent injunction would contain the findings required by the PLRA. After entry of this permanent injunction, the court could dismiss all claims and vacate all existing orders.

On November 30, 2016, the plaintiffs and the plaintiff-intervenors filed a joint motion seeking an order requiring employees in the RCC’s medical unit to complete a specialized competency-based training. They also sought to have employees without necessary specialized skills transferred out of the unit. In the same motion, they asked the court to hold a show-cause hearing regarding compliance with some of the court’s previous orders. The court granted this motion, and ordered the jail to demonstrate that it was in compliance with the following:

  1. The court’s 2001 Supplemental Order, which required the city to give “direction to law enforcement officials under the control of the City…to issue citations where appropriate and to use the ‘walk through procedures,’ rather than incarcerating individuals, where appropriate.”
  2. Another provision of the 2001 Supplemental Order, which required the city and county to “schedule a meeting or meetings concerning the provision of mental health services in Bernalillo County…to plan how to implement an effective jail diversion program for persons with psychiatric or developmental disabilities.”
  3. The ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, with regard to detaining and arresting individuals with mental illnesses or developmental disabilities as a means of removing them from the streets.
The court granted the plaintiff-intervenors’ request to conduct limited discovery before this show-cause hearing. While this discovery ensued, the parties engaged in mediation efforts with Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen.

On September 11, 2017, the court denied the motion for further remedial relief and decided not to hold the defendants in contempt. Despite the MDC’s training deficiencies and its hesitation when faced with allegations of abuse, the court believed that there was not yet sufficient evidence to hold the county in contempt. The court did state that the county would have to improve the MDC’s mental health services before the court would find substantial compliance as required by the settlement.

On that same day, the court granted final approval of another settlement agreement, this time between the city, the plaintiff class, and the plaintiff-intervenor subclass. This settlement was not directly related to conditions at the jail, but instead required the city and county to revise their arrest procedures. Specifically, the defendants agreed to issue a special order directing police officers to issue citations wherever appropriate, and directing that individuals alleged to have committed non-violent misdemeanor offenses not be arrested unless circumstances required an arrest. The defendants also agreed to pay $80,000 in attorneys' fees.

Following the death of one of the experts, Manuel Romero, in November 2017, the court on February 5 appointed Margo Frasier as a replacement. The court asked Ms. Frasier to evaluate whether the MDC was in compliance with the standards described in the Check-Out Audit agreement. The court instructed Ms. Frasier to: prepare her first report by August 31, 2018; prepare her second report by February 28, 2019; and then to continue preparing subsequent reports at six-month intervals.

Between December 2019 and February 2020, the court found the defendants to be in initial substantial compliance with 3 of the 8 domains described in the 2016 settlement agreement. For those 3 domains, the court-ordered self-monitoring periods will end between August 31, 2020 and August 19, 2021.

As of August 6, 2020, the defendants continue to work toward initial substantial compliance in the remaining 5 domains.

Summary Authors

Michael Abrams (10/19/2016)

MJ Koo (3/15/2017)

Chris Pollack (4/3/2019)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4518376/parties/mcclendon-v-albuquerque-city-of/


Judge(s)

Gorsuch, Neil M. (Colorado)

Kelly, Paul Joseph Jr. (New Mexico)

Molzen, Karen Ballard (New Mexico)

Parker, James Aubrey (New Mexico)

Seymour, Stephanie Kulp (Oklahoma)

Torgerson, Alan C. (New Mexico)

Vázquez, Martha Alicia (New Mexico)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Ayala, Anthony J. (New Mexico)

Coberly, Todd A (New Mexico)

Cory, Kenneth C. (Nevada)

Judge(s)

Gorsuch, Neil M. (Colorado)

Kelly, Paul Joseph Jr. (New Mexico)

Molzen, Karen Ballard (New Mexico)

Parker, James Aubrey (New Mexico)

Seymour, Stephanie Kulp (Oklahoma)

Torgerson, Alan C. (New Mexico)

Vázquez, Martha Alicia (New Mexico)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Ayala, Anthony J. (New Mexico)

Coberly, Todd A (New Mexico)

Cory, Kenneth C. (Nevada)

Crowley, Martin G. (Nevada)

Cubra, Peter (New Mexico)

Davis, Philip B. (New Mexico)

Dickson, Claire (New Mexico)

Donatelli, Mark H. (New Mexico)

Duncan, Theresa M (New Mexico)

Han, Mary Y.C. (New Mexico)

Ives, Zach A (New Mexico)

Kennedy, Joseph P. (New Mexico)

Khalsa, Kirtan K (New Mexico)

Koenigsberg, Nancy (New Mexico)

Lowry, Marc M (New Mexico)

Oliver, Shannon L. (New Mexico)

Plater, Joseph R. (Nevada)

Pori, Brian A. (New Mexico)

Schmidt-Nowara, Mary (Molly) E (New Mexico)

Schoenburg, Peter (New Mexico)

Simpson, Elizabeth E. (New Mexico)

Smith, Alexandra Freedman (New Mexico)

Vallejos, Andrew (New Mexico)

Winterbottom, Richard A. (New Mexico)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Autio, Randy (New Mexico)

Baker, Jeffrey L. (New Mexico)

DuBois, John E. (New Mexico)

Hernandez, Jessica M. (New Mexico)

Levy, Kathryn (New Mexico)

Macke, Daniel J (New Mexico)

Moulton, Debra J (New Mexico)

Rael, Marcus J Jr. (New Mexico)

Ritchie, Carol Jean (New Mexico)

Robles, Luis E. (New Mexico)

Other Attorney(s)

Bach, George (New Mexico)

Meilleur, David (New Mexico)

Schatz-Vance, Lisa Y (New Mexico)

Simmons, Nancy (New Mexico)

Sylvest, Flynn Evelyn (New Mexico)

Vanzi, Linda M (New Mexico)

Waterfall, Kelly K (New Mexico)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

6:95-cv-00024

Docket [PACER]

April 27, 2020

April 27, 2020

Docket
1

6:95-cv-00024

Complaint Class Action

Jan. 10, 1995

Jan. 10, 1995

Complaint
106

6:95-cv-00024

Order

Aug. 23, 1995

Aug. 23, 1995

Order/Opinion
115

6:95-cv-00024

Settlement Agreement

Sept. 7, 1995

Sept. 7, 1995

Settlement Agreement
150

6:95-cv-00024

Amended Complaint in Intervention for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Nov. 22, 1995

Nov. 22, 1995

Complaint

96-02056

96-02057

Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

79 F.3d 1014, 1996 U.S.App.LEXIS 6206

April 2, 1996

April 2, 1996

Order/Opinion
253

6:95-cv-00024

Memorandum Opinion and Order

29 F.Supp.2d 1267, 1996 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 22285

Oct. 29, 1996

Oct. 29, 1996

Order/Opinion
255

6:95-cv-00024

Order Regarding the Prison Litigation Reform Act

Nov. 5, 1996

Nov. 5, 1996

Order/Opinion
257

6:95-cv-00024

Order Certifying a Class

Nov. 5, 1996

Nov. 5, 1996

Order/Opinion
256

6:95-cv-00024

Order [re. settlement of plaintiff-intervenors]

Nov. 5, 1996

Nov. 5, 1996

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4518376/mcclendon-v-albuquerque-city-of/

Last updated Aug. 15, 2022, 3:08 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT (Summonses issued) (referred to Magistrate Don J. Svet) (jm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2010: # 1 Complaint (pages 40-70), # 2 Complaint (pages 71-110)) (ln). (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/11/2013: # 3 Appendix Civil Cover Sheet) (id). (Entered: 01/19/1995)

1 Complaint (pages 40-70)

View on PACER

2 Complaint (pages 71-110)

View on PACER

3 Appendix Civil Cover Sheet

View on PACER

Jan. 10, 1995

Jan. 10, 1995

PACER
3

MEMORANDUM by pltfs in support of motion for determination of class action [2-1] (jm) (id). (Entered: 01/19/1995)

Jan. 10, 1995

Jan. 10, 1995

PACER
1031

FILING FEE PAID in amount of $120.00, receipt #74639. (jm) (id). (Entered: 01/19/1995)

Jan. 11, 1995

Jan. 11, 1995

PACER
2

MOTION by pltfs for determination of class action (jm) (id). (Entered: 01/19/1995)

Jan. 11, 1995

Jan. 11, 1995

PACER
7

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon Patrick Baca on 1/11/95 (jm) (id). (Entered: 01/19/1995)

Jan. 11, 1995

Jan. 11, 1995

PACER
13

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon Paul Sanchez on 1/11/95 (jm) (id). (Entered: 01/19/1995)

Jan. 11, 1995

Jan. 11, 1995

PACER
4

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon City of Albuquerque on 1/11/95 (jm) (id). (Entered: 01/19/1995)

Jan. 17, 1995

Jan. 17, 1995

PACER
5

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon Martin Chavez on 1/11/95 (jm) (id). (Entered: 01/19/1995)

Jan. 17, 1995

Jan. 17, 1995

PACER
6

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon City Attorney on 1/11/95 (jm) (id). (Entered: 01/19/1995)

Jan. 17, 1995

Jan. 17, 1995

PACER
8

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon Albert Valdez on 1/11/95 (jm) (id). (Entered: 01/19/1995)

Jan. 17, 1995

Jan. 17, 1995

PACER
9

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon Eugene Gilbert on 1/11/95 (jm) (id). (Entered: 01/19/1995)

Jan. 17, 1995

Jan. 17, 1995

PACER
10

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon Barbara Seward on 1/11/95 (jm) (id). (Entered: 01/19/1995)

Jan. 17, 1995

Jan. 17, 1995

PACER
11

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon Jacquelyn Schaefer on 1/11/95 (jm) (id). (Entered: 01/19/1995)

Jan. 17, 1995

Jan. 17, 1995

PACER
12

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon Bill Dantis on 1/11/95 (jm) (id). (Entered: 01/19/1995)

Jan. 17, 1995

Jan. 17, 1995

PACER
14

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon Frank Lovato on 1/11/95 (jm) (id). (Entered: 01/19/1995)

Jan. 17, 1995

Jan. 17, 1995

PACER
15

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon Ercell Griffin on 1/11/95 (jm) (id). (Entered: 01/19/1995)

Jan. 17, 1995

Jan. 17, 1995

PACER
16

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon Michael Smith on 1/11/95 (jm) (id). (Entered: 01/19/1995)

Jan. 17, 1995

Jan. 17, 1995

PACER
17

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon John Van Sickler on 1/11/95 (jm) (id). (Entered: 01/19/1995)

Jan. 17, 1995

Jan. 17, 1995

PACER
18

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon Will Bell on 1/11/95 (jm) (id). (Entered: 01/19/1995)

Jan. 17, 1995

Jan. 17, 1995

PACER
19

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon Albert Chavez on 1/11/95 (jm) (id). (Entered: 01/19/1995)

Jan. 17, 1995

Jan. 17, 1995

PACER
20

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon Richard Fusco on 1/11/95 (jm) (id). (Entered: 01/19/1995)

Jan. 17, 1995

Jan. 17, 1995

PACER
21

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon George Fuentes on 1/11/95 (jm) (id). (Entered: 01/19/1995)

Jan. 17, 1995

Jan. 17, 1995

PACER
22

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon David Baca on 1/11/95 (jm) (id). (Entered: 01/19/1995)

Jan. 17, 1995

Jan. 17, 1995

PACER
23

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon Victor Hernandez on 1/11/95 (jm) (id). (Entered: 01/19/1995)

Jan. 17, 1995

Jan. 17, 1995

PACER
24

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant Kevin D Sevir on 1/11/95 (jm) (id). (Entered: 01/19/1995)

Jan. 17, 1995

Jan. 17, 1995

PACER
25

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant Jim Mason on 1/11/95 (jm) (id). (Entered: 01/19/1995)

Jan. 17, 1995

Jan. 17, 1995

PACER
26

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant Barbara Cole on 1/11/95 (jm) (id). (Entered: 01/19/1995)

Jan. 17, 1995

Jan. 17, 1995

PACER
27

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant Maria Lucero on 1/11/95 (jm) (id). (Entered: 01/19/1995)

Jan. 17, 1995

Jan. 17, 1995

PACER
28

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant David Royston on 1/11/95 (jm) (id). (Entered: 01/19/1995)

Jan. 17, 1995

Jan. 17, 1995

PACER
29

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant Felimon Martinez on 1/11/95 (jm) (id). (Entered: 01/19/1995)

Jan. 17, 1995

Jan. 17, 1995

PACER
30

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant Stanley Lents on 1/11/95 (jm) (id). (Entered: 01/19/1995)

Jan. 17, 1995

Jan. 17, 1995

PACER
31

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant Douglas Robinson on 1/11/95 (jm) (id). (Entered: 01/19/1995)

Jan. 17, 1995

Jan. 17, 1995

PACER
32

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant Seal Barley on 1/11/95 (jm) (id). (Entered: 01/19/1995)

Jan. 17, 1995

Jan. 17, 1995

PACER
33

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant Lynn King on 1/11/95 (jm) (id). (Entered: 01/19/1995)

Jan. 17, 1995

Jan. 17, 1995

PACER
34

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant David Sherman on 1/11/95 (jm) (id). (Entered: 01/19/1995)

Jan. 17, 1995

Jan. 17, 1995

PACER
35

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant Brian Maser on 1/11/95 (jm) (id). (Entered: 01/19/1995)

Jan. 17, 1995

Jan. 17, 1995

PACER
36

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendants John Does on 1/11/95 (jm) (id). (Entered: 01/19/1995)

Jan. 17, 1995

Jan. 17, 1995

PACER
37

MOTION by defts to extend time to file Answer (jm) (id). (Entered: 01/31/1995)

Jan. 27, 1995

Jan. 27, 1995

PACER
38

MOTION by pltfs to amend motion and memorandum regarding class action (former employee) (id). (Entered: 02/15/1995)

Feb. 13, 1995

Feb. 13, 1995

PACER
39

AMENDED MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION AS TO CLASS ACTION by plaintiffs [2-1] (former employee) (id). (Entered: 02/16/1995)

Feb. 13, 1995

Feb. 13, 1995

PACER
40

AMENDED MEMORANDUM by pltfs in support of amended motion [39-1] (former employee) (id). (Entered: 02/16/1995)

Feb. 13, 1995

Feb. 13, 1995

PACER
41

ORDER by Judge Martha Vazquez granting defts 120 days in which to file Answer [37-1] (cc: all counsel) (former employee) (id). (Entered: 02/16/1995)

Feb. 16, 1995

Feb. 16, 1995

PACER
42

MOTION by pltfs for preliminary injunction enjoining operation of BCDC in its present condition (jm) (id). (Entered: 02/17/1995)

Feb. 16, 1995

Feb. 16, 1995

PACER
43

MEMORANDUM by pltfs in support of motion for preliminary injunction enjoining operation of BCDC in its present condition [42-1] (jm) (id). (Entered: 02/17/1995)

Feb. 16, 1995

Feb. 16, 1995

PACER
44

MOTION by pltfs for expedited discovery (jm) (id). (Entered: 02/17/1995)

Feb. 16, 1995

Feb. 16, 1995

PACER
45

MEMORANDUM by pltfs in support of motion for expedited discovery [44-1] (jm) (id). (Entered: 02/17/1995)

Feb. 16, 1995

Feb. 16, 1995

PACER
46

CERTIFICATE by pltfs of delivering 1st set of interrogs and request for production to defts on 2/16/95 (jm) (id). (Entered: 02/17/1995)

Feb. 16, 1995

Feb. 16, 1995

PACER
47

ORDER by Judge Martha Vazquez granting pltfs' motion to amend motion and memorandum regarding class action [38-1] (cc: all counsel) (jm) (id). (Entered: 02/21/1995)

Feb. 21, 1995

Feb. 21, 1995

PACER
48

MOTION by defts to extend time until 5/8/95 to respond to motions for preliminary injunction, expedited discovery, and certification of class w/memorandum in support (jm) (id). (Entered: 03/06/1995)

March 3, 1995

March 3, 1995

PACER
49

ORDER by Judge Martha Vazquez granting defts' motion to extend time until 5/8/95 to respond to motions for preliminary injunction, expedited discovery, and certification of class [48-1] (cc: all counsel) (jm) (id). (Entered: 03/08/1995)

March 8, 1995

March 8, 1995

PACER
50

AFFIDAVIT of Kennedy de la Pena in support of motion for preliminary injunction [42-1] (jm) (id). (Entered: 03/15/1995)

March 13, 1995

March 13, 1995

PACER
51

INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER by Magistrate Don J. Svet: Rule 16 scheduling conference set for 4/13/95 at 8:30am (cc: all counsel) (jm) (id). (Entered: 03/27/1995)

March 27, 1995

March 27, 1995

PACER
52

ORDER by Magistrate Don J. Svet vacating deadlines set in initial scheduling order (cc: all counsel) (jm) (id). (Entered: 04/03/1995)

April 3, 1995

April 3, 1995

PACER
53

CLERK'S MINUTES: Status conference held before Judge Martha Vazquez. Court wants expedited track; wants to be well informed with Judge Svet; will take interim measures if necessary. Basically 31 separate lawsuits, 1 overriding claim--overcrowding, 30 individuals seeking money damages. Court will deal with issue of overcrowding first. Would be interested in a tour of BCDC. Discovery plan due by 4/21/95; telephone conference set for 4/24/95 to discuss preliminary injunction setting. C/R: None (jm) (id). (Entered: 04/06/1995)

April 5, 1995

April 5, 1995

PACER
54

ORDER by Magistrate Don J. Svet Rule 16 scheduling conference scheduled for 4/13/95 at 8:30 am is vacated (cc: all counsel) (former employee) (id). (Entered: 04/11/1995)

April 11, 1995

April 11, 1995

PACER
55

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE for deft City of Albuquerque by John E. DuBois (jm) (id). (Entered: 04/18/1995)

April 13, 1995

April 13, 1995

PACER
56

MOTION by pltfs for order to show cause why defts should not be held in contempt of Court's prior rulings (jm) (id). (Entered: 04/25/1995)

April 21, 1995

April 21, 1995

PACER
57

MEMORANDUM by pltfs in support of motion for order to show cause why defts should not be held in contempt of Court's prior rulings [56-1] (jm) (id). (Entered: 04/25/1995)

April 21, 1995

April 21, 1995

PACER
58

AFFIDAVIT of Anthony Ayala re: attorney fees in support of motion for order to show cause why defts should not be held in contempt of Court's prior rulings [56-1] (jm) (id). (Entered: 04/25/1995)

April 21, 1995

April 21, 1995

PACER
59

RESPONSE by defts to motion for order to show cause why defts should not be held in contempt of Court's prior rulings [56-1] (jm) (id). (Entered: 04/27/1995)

April 25, 1995

April 25, 1995

PACER
60

PROVISIONAL DISCOVERY PLAN by plaintiffs (former employee) (id). (Entered: 05/02/1995)

May 1, 1995

May 1, 1995

PACER
61

MOTION by pltfs for sealing bill of costs and fees (former employee) (id). (Entered: 05/09/1995)

May 8, 1995

May 8, 1995

PACER
62

MEMORANDUM by pltfs in support of motion for sealing bill of costs and fees [61-1] (former employee) (id). (Entered: 05/09/1995)

May 8, 1995

May 8, 1995

PACER
63

ANSWER by defts [1-1] (jm) (id). (Entered: 05/10/1995)

May 8, 1995

May 8, 1995

PACER
64

JURY DEMAND by defendants (jm) (id). (Entered: 05/10/1995)

May 8, 1995

May 8, 1995

PACER
65

RESPONSE by defendants to motion for determination of class action [2-1] (jm) (id). (Entered: 05/10/1995)

May 8, 1995

May 8, 1995

PACER
66

RESPONSE by defts to motion for preliminary injunction [42-1] (jm) (id). (Entered: 05/10/1995)

May 8, 1995

May 8, 1995

PACER
67

MOTION by plfs for assessment of expert fees (jm) (id). (Entered: 05/16/1995)

May 15, 1995

May 15, 1995

PACER
68

MEMORANDUM by pltfs in support of motion for assessment of expert fees [67-1] (jm) (id). (Entered: 05/16/1995)

May 15, 1995

May 15, 1995

PACER
69

MOTION by defts for order to trifurcate and memorandum in support (former employee) (id). (Entered: 05/23/1995)

May 22, 1995

May 22, 1995

PACER
70

RESPONSE by defts to motion for assessment of expert fees [67-1] (jm) (id). (Entered: 06/05/1995)

June 2, 1995

June 2, 1995

PACER
71

MOTION by defts for protective order ordering tha depositions of experts not be taken until court has ruled on motion for assessment of fees (jm) (id). (Entered: 06/06/1995)

June 5, 1995

June 5, 1995

PACER
72

ORDER by Magistrate Don J. Svet granting pltfs' motion for expedited discovery [44-1]. Discovery to proceed as ordered at scheduling conference held 5/4/95. (cc: all counsel) (jm) (id). (Entered: 06/08/1995)

June 8, 1995

June 8, 1995

PACER
73

DISCOVERY ORDER by Magistrate Don J. Svet (cc: all counsel) (jm) (id). (Entered: 06/08/1995)

June 8, 1995

June 8, 1995

PACER
74

MOTION by pltfs to withdraw motions for assessment of fees, motion for order to show cause, and motion for sealing costs and fee (jm) (id). (Entered: 06/12/1995)

June 8, 1995

June 8, 1995

PACER
75

MINUTE ORDER: setting hearing on motion for preliminary injunction [42-1] at 8:30 am on 8/11/95 before Judge Vazquez in Santa Fe. CLERK:ls (cc: all counsel by ls) (former employee) (id). (Entered: 06/13/1995)

June 12, 1995

June 12, 1995

PACER
76

CERTIFICATE by defts of delivering responses to 1st set of interrogatories and responses to 1st request for production to pltf on 6/13/95 (jm) Modified on 06/26/1995 (id). (Entered: 06/15/1995)

June 13, 1995

June 13, 1995

PACER
77

MOTION by pltfs for leave to reply to response motion for preliminary injunction and to reply to response to motion for determination of class action, and to exceed page limit (jm) Modified on 06/26/1995 (id). (Entered: 06/15/1995)

June 14, 1995

June 14, 1995

PACER
78

ORDER by Judge John E. Conway granting pltfs' motion to withdraw motions for assessment of fees, motion for order show cause, and motion for sealing costs and fees [74-1]; withdrawing motion for assessment of expert fees [67-1]; and withdrawing motion for order to show cause why defts should not be held in contempt of Court's prior rulings [56-1] (cc: all counsel) (jm) (id). (Entered: 06/15/1995)

June 15, 1995

June 15, 1995

PACER
79

MOTION by plaintiffs for order allowing telephonic depositions of the defense experts (former employee) (id). (Entered: 06/25/1995)

June 22, 1995

June 22, 1995

PACER
80

MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of motion for order allowing telephonic depositions of the defense experts [79-1] (former employee) (id). (Entered: 06/25/1995)

June 22, 1995

June 22, 1995

PACER
81

ORDER by Magistrate Svet granting motion for leave to reply to response motion for preliminary injunction and to reply to response to motion for determination of class action [77-1] and granting motion to exceed page limit [77-2] (cc: all counsel) (former employee) (id). (Entered: 06/26/1995)

June 26, 1995

June 26, 1995

PACER
82

MOTION by defts for entry of order trifurcating proceedings (jm) (id). (Entered: 06/28/1995)

June 27, 1995

June 27, 1995

PACER
83

RESPONSE by defendants to motion for order allowing telephonic depositions of the defense experts [79-1] (jm) (id). (Entered: 07/05/1995)

June 30, 1995

June 30, 1995

PACER
84

MOTION by pltfs to amend complaint (former employee) (id). (Entered: 07/06/1995)

June 30, 1995

June 30, 1995

PACER
85

MEMORANDUM by pltfs in support of motion to amend complaint [84-1] (former employee) (id). (Entered: 07/06/1995)

June 30, 1995

June 30, 1995

PACER
86

RESPONSE by pltfs to motion for entry of order trifurcating proceedings [82-1] (former employee) (id). (Entered: 07/06/1995)

June 30, 1995

June 30, 1995

PACER
87

REPLY by pltfs to defts' to response to motion for determination of class action [2-1] (former employee) (id). (Entered: 07/06/1995)

June 30, 1995

June 30, 1995

PACER
88

REPLY by pltfs to response to petition for preliminary injunction [42-1] (former employee) (id). (Entered: 07/06/1995)

June 30, 1995

June 30, 1995

PACER
89

REPLY by defendants to pltf's response to motion for entry of order trifurcating proceedings [82-1] (rlc) (ln). (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/11/2013: # 1 Correct copy of original pleading) (id). (Entered: 07/11/1995)

1 Correct copy of original pleading

View on PACER

July 7, 1995

July 7, 1995

PACER
90

RESPONSE by defendants to motion to amend complaint [84-1] (former employee) (id). (Entered: 07/13/1995)

July 12, 1995

July 12, 1995

PACER
1066

Letter by USDC to Anthony Ayala regarding submission of Pretrial Order. (id) (Entered: 09/13/2013)

July 13, 1995

July 13, 1995

PACER
91

UNOPPOSED MOTION by pltfs to withdraw motion for telephone depositions (former employee) (id). (Entered: 07/20/1995)

July 18, 1995

July 18, 1995

PACER

TIME RECORDS submitted by Anthony J. Ayala for plaintiff John Hewatt for 12/94 (sealed) (former employee)

July 18, 1995

July 18, 1995

PACER

TIME RECORDS submitted by Anthony Ayala, attorney for pltfs for 11/94 (sealed) (former employee)

July 18, 1995

July 18, 1995

PACER

TIME RECORDS submitted by Anthony J. Ayala for 10/94 (sealed) (former employee)

July 18, 1995

July 18, 1995

PACER

TIME RECORDS submitted by Anthony J. Ayala for 1/95 (sealed) (former employee)

July 18, 1995

July 18, 1995

PACER

TIME RECORDS submitted by Anthony J. Ayala for 2/95 (sealed) (former employee)

July 18, 1995

July 18, 1995

PACER

TIME RECORDS submitted by Anthony Ayala, attorney for plaintiff, for 3/95 (sealed) (former employee)

July 18, 1995

July 18, 1995

PACER

TIME RECORDS submitted by Anthony J. Ayala, attorney for pltfs, for 4/95 (sealed) (former employee)

July 18, 1995

July 18, 1995

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: New Mexico

Case Type(s):

Jail Conditions

Special Collection(s):

Post-PLRA enforceable consent decrees

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Jan. 10, 1995

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

The "present and future residents of BCDC" (Bernalillo County Detention Center in Albuquerque, New Mexico)

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Non-profit NON-religious organization

Attorney Organizations:

NDRN/Protection & Advocacy Organizations

ACLU Affiliates (any)

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Bernalillo County Detention Center (Albuquerque, Bernalillo), County

City of Albuquerque (Albuquerque, Bernalillo), City

Bernalillo County (Bernalillo), County

Defendant Type(s):

Law-enforcement

Corrections

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.

42 U.S.C. § 1981

Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701

State law

Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Slavery/Involuntary servitude

Due Process: Substantive Due Process

Free Exercise Clause

Freedom of speech/association

Equal Protection

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Attorneys fees

Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order

Declaratory Judgment

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: 80,000

Order Duration: 1995 - None

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief granted

Reasonable Accommodation

Discrimination Prohibition

Reporting

Monitor/Master

Monitoring

Training

Issues

General:

Assault/abuse by staff

Conditions of confinement

Confinement/isolation

Disciplinary procedures

Disparate Treatment

Excessive force

Failure to supervise

Failure to train

Food service / nutrition / hydration

Grievance Procedures

Improper treatment of mentally ill suspects

Law library access

Mail

Pattern or Practice

Pepper/OC spray

Personal injury

Placement in detention facilities

Protective custody

Reasonable Accommodations

Recreation / Exercise

Rehabilitation

Sanitation / living conditions

Sex w/ staff; sexual harassment by staff

Solitary confinement/Supermax (conditions or process)

Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)

Totality of conditions

Crowding:

Crowding / caseload

Post-PLRA Population Cap

Pre-PLRA Population Cap

Discrimination-basis:

Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)

National origin discrimination

Race discrimination

Sex discrimination

Race:

Black

Race, unspecified

Affected Gender:

Female

Disability:

Mental impairment

Medical/Mental Health:

Dental care

Intellectual disability/mental illness dual diagnosis

Medical care, general

Mental health care, general

Type of Facility:

Government-run