Case: Manney v. Cabell

2:75-cv-03305 | U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Filed Date: Sept. 25, 1975

Closed Date: Aug. 7, 1981

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

Sometime before May 1976, juvenile males awaiting detention hearings, trial, or transfer to treatment facilities in the Central Juvenile Hall, Los Angeles County, California, filed a class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs, who were represented by the Western Center on Law and Poverty, petitioned the court for injunctive relief from numerous violations of United States and California constitutional rights ca…

Sometime before May 1976, juvenile males awaiting detention hearings, trial, or transfer to treatment facilities in the Central Juvenile Hall, Los Angeles County, California, filed a class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs, who were represented by the Western Center on Law and Poverty, petitioned the court for injunctive relief from numerous violations of United States and California constitutional rights caused by jail overcrowding and conditions.

The United States District Court for the Central District of California (Judge Manual L. Real) issued a preliminary injunction regarding overcrowding on May 10, 1976, which was modified December 12, 1976. On April 12, 1976, the District Court (Judge Real) issued an order and judgment listing guidelines for treatment of juvenile detainees awaiting hearings, trial, or transfer, including jail capacity, access to toilets and showers, privacy when showering, and sleeping facilities.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Judge Procter Ralph Hug, Jr.) vacated and remanded, concluding the federal courts should abstain from creating guidelines for state juvenile jails. Manney v. Cabell, 654 F.2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1980). Specifically, the lawsuit (1) addressed a state concern which federal courts should not intrude upon, (2) did not require interpretation of the Constitution, and (3) construed California law not previously interpreted by State court. The Ninth Circuit denied the inmates' petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc on August 27, 1981. We do not have the docket or any further information on the case.

Summary Authors

Elizabeth Chilcoat (5/15/2006)

People


Judge(s)

Hug, Procter Ralph Jr. (Nevada)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Wise , Erich P. (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Bennett, Frederick R. (California)

Hickok, Philip H. (California)

Larson, John H. (California)

Judge(s)

Hug, Procter Ralph Jr. (Nevada)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Wise , Erich P. (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Bennett, Frederick R. (California)

Hickok, Philip H. (California)

Larson, John H. (California)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Reported Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

654 F.2d 1280

April 29, 1980 Order/Opinion

Resources

Title Description External URL

Docket

Last updated May 12, 2022, 8 p.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Juvenile Institution

Key Dates

Filing Date: Sept. 25, 1975

Closing Date: Aug. 7, 1981

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

juvenile males awaiting detention hearings, trial, or transfer to treatment facilities in the Central Juvenile Hall, Los Angeles County, California

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: Unknown

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Los Angeles County, County

California Department of Corrections (Los Angeles, Los Angeles), County

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Availably Documents:

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Defendant

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Order Duration: 1976 - 1980

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief granted

Issues

General:

Bathing and hygiene

Sanitation / living conditions

Totality of conditions

Crowding:

Crowding / caseload

Affected Gender:

Male

Type of Facility:

Government-run