Case: Hammer v. King County
2:89-cv-00521 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Filed Date: 1989
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This is a class-action lawsuit filed in 1989 by incarcerated people and corrections officers at the King County Correctional Facility (KCCF) in the state of Washington. The plaintiffs, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Washington and Evergreen Legal Services (now Columbia Legal Services), sued King County, Washington, alleging that KCCF had unsafe conditions, not enough staff, and poor medical and mental health care. The plaintiffs initially filed in the King County Superior Court, but the defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on April 6, 1989. It was initially assigned to Judge Carolyn R. Dimmick, but she recused herself on April 12, 1989, and the case was reassigned to Judge Barbara J. Rothstein. The Clearinghouse was unable to locate the complaint. The plaintiffs brought federal constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, state law claims, and perhaps others. They sought declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and perhaps other relief.
On April 28, 1989, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class action. The defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment on May 15, 1989. The defendants also filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive and declaratory relief on the same day. As the parties traded responses and replies, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on June 8, 1989. The next month, on July 10, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, granted the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment on the guards’ § 1983 claims, granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, and remanded the guards’ state law claims to state court.
After oral argument on August 15, 1989 on the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the possibility of settlement was discussed and the parties agreed to search for a mediator. As a result, the court took the motion under advisement. Later that year, on November 29, the plaintiffs moved for approval of their notice of a partial settlement of the class action claims. The court granted it on December 14, 1989. However, a plaintiff filed objections to the summary of the proposed settlement on December 28, 1989. The plaintiffs filed a motion for an order approving the partial settlement on January 25 of the following year.
The following month, on February 27, the court approved the partial settlement. The Clearinghouse was unable to locate the settlement. On March 13, 1990, the court set the pretrial and trial schedule for the remaining issues. The court would hold a bench trial as to the remaining injunctive issues, with a jury trial for the damages phase after.
On March 22, 1990, the plaintiffs filed a motion for attorneys' fees. On May 14, 1990, the court decided the issue of attorneys' fees should be decided at the conclusion of the case. Therefore, the motion was stricken with leave for plaintiffs to renew at the conclusion of litigation. However, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration that was ultimately successful. Thus, on July 24, 1990, the court awarded interim attorneys' fees of $40,000 to the plaintiffs.
The court dismissed plaintiffs claims for damages and attorney fees against specific defendants on October 5, 1990. The same day, the plaintiffs amended their complaint by terminating a plaintiff and adding additional ones. The plaintiffs later filed a second amended complaint on April 2, 1991. On March 7, 1991, the court designated the plaintiffs’ damage claims for meditation.
On April 17, 1991, the court approved the plaintiffs’ notice of settlement of class claims on health care. The plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment soon after, on April 22. Later that month, on April 26, two plaintiffs stipulated to dismissal of their claims. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment of some of the constitutional claims and a motion to dismiss state law claims on May 3, 1991, but withdrew the motion a few weeks later, on May 23. A week later, on May 31, the court struck all pending motions because the parties had settled. Subsequently, the court dismissed the case with prejudice on June 10, 1991. The Clearinghouse was unable to locate the settlement.
The plaintiffs filed a motion for order approving the notice of a settlement of class claims on beds and classification, which the court approved on August 23, 1991. A stipulation, order and final judgment was entered on October 11, 1991. As a result, the plaintiffs filed a motion for attorneys' fees on November 1, 1991, but they withdrew the motion the following month. Two years later, the plaintiffs filed a motion for attorneys' fees for monitoring and enforcing activities on December 6, 1993. The court granted this motion on January 28, 1994 and ordered the defendants to pay $14,929.68.
On August 7, 1995, at the request of both parties, the court ordered that any adult prisoners under the supervision of the Alder Unit of the King County Department of Adult Detention would be part of the plaintiff class and subject to all orders.
The court later granted a joint motion that provisionally approved the settlement of class action and directed notice to the class on June 17, 1998. Some plaintiffs objected to the proposed class settlement. However, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for approval of the settlement on October 19, 1998 and dismissed the case. As part of the settlement, the defendants agreed to comply with numerous changes for jail health care, the population size at the jail, minimizing unsafe conditions, and providing sufficient correctional staffing. The settlement agreement does not expire. For nearly 25 years, the settlement meant that the ACLU has received regular reports from the jail on staffing, crowding, access to health care and more.
In 2022, multiple news articles raised concerns about KCCF’s compliance with its obligations under the settlement agreement, including incarcerated individuals not receiving mental health care, medical care, or follow-up treatment, not being able to access the courts, not receiving out-of-cell time, or not having adequate correctional staffing levels.
As a result, on February 24, 2023, the ACLU filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Washington for Pierce County alleging that KCCF and King County were out of compliance with the settlement agreement. The plaintiffs sought a declaration finding King County in breach of the settlement agreement and an order requiring them to come into compliance. The claims included the concerns cited by the news articles, as well as additional problems in the jail resulting from severe understaffing, pandemic restrictions on visitation and flawed bunk designs that heightened suicide risks. The case was heard by Judge Andre M. Penalver.
On March 2, 2023, the ACLU filed an amended complaint. After some discovery, a joint stipulation for dismissal was filed on September 18, 2023. The court filed a partial order for dismissal the next day. As of March 24, 2024, the case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Venesa Haska (1/29/2024)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/9082885/parties/hammer-v-king-county-of/
Baker, La Rond (Washington)
Bender, William J. (Washington)
Burns, John R. (Washington)
Diamondstone, Fred (Washington)
Doran, Bryan Daniel (Washington)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Resources
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/9082885/hammer-v-king-county-of/
Last updated Aug. 30, 2026, 4:42 a.m.
Docket for: Hammer v. King, County of
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Healthcare Access and Reproductive Issues
Key Dates
Filing Date: 1989
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Incarcerated people and corrections officers at the King County Correctional Facility in the state of Washington.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
County
King County
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Other Dockets:
Washington state trial court 23-2-05019-9
Western District of Washington 2:89-cv-00521
Washington state trial court 89-2-04898-1
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Preliminary relief request withdrawn/mooted
Amount Defendant Pays: $44,930
Issues
General/Misc.:
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Placement in mental health facilities
Medical/Mental Health Care:
Mental health care, unspecified
Case Summary of Hammer v. King County, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/44175/ (last updated 1/29/2024).