Case: Rutherford v. Block

2:75-cv-04111 | U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Filed Date: Feb. 9, 1975

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On February 9, 1975, prisoners represented by the ACLU Foundation of Southern California filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, challenging the practices and conditions of confinement at the Los Angeles County Central Jail (the "Jail"). On December 31, 1975, the District Court certified the class.Following a 17 day trial on the matter and unannounced jail inspections by the Court, the District Court (Judge William P. Gray) entered an orde…

On February 9, 1975, prisoners represented by the ACLU Foundation of Southern California filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, challenging the practices and conditions of confinement at the Los Angeles County Central Jail (the "Jail"). On December 31, 1975, the District Court certified the class.

Following a 17 day trial on the matter and unannounced jail inspections by the Court, the District Court (Judge William P. Gray) entered an order granting plaintiffs injunctive relief and ordering defendants to make twelve different changes in jail conditions. Rutherford v. Pitchess, 457 F.Supp. 104 (C.D.Cal. (1978)). The defendants accepted nine of the District Court's mandated changes, which covered a variety of problems including overcrowding, inadequate exercise, lack of clean clothing and telephone access, and insufficient time to eat meals. It appealed the remaining three that required the changes to procedures relating to (1) contact visits; (2) cell searches; and (3) re-installation of transparent windows in the cells.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the matter to the District Court, for reconsideration of the three disputed changes in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). Rutherford v. Pitchess, 626 F.2d 866 (9th Cir. 1980). On remand, the District Court reaffirmed its previous order with respect to all three conditions. The defendants appealed again. The Court of Appeals reversed the order requiring re-installation of windows and affirmed the other two changes. Rutherford v. Pitchess, 710 F.2d 572 (9th Cir. 1983). Defendants filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, which was granted. Block v. Rutherford, 464 U.S. 959, 104 S.Ct. 390, 78 L.Ed.2d 334 (1983).

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, finding that that the jail's policy of denying pretrial detainees contact visits and its practice of conducting random, irregular shakedown searches of cells in absence of the detainees did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Block v. Rutherford, 104 S.Ct. 3227 (1984). We have no information on the status of case proceedings from 1984 to March 1, 1992, when the District Court ordered the case to be reopened.

From 1992 through 2005, various orders and stipulations of the parties were entered regarding payment of attorneys' fees. In September 2005, the District Court (Judge Dean D. Pregerson) denied the application of intervenor Martin Quintana for permissive intervention and to dissolve any prison conditions injunction that may exist. Intervenor Quintana appealed. His appeal was eventually dismissed. A subsequent motion for permissive intervention and to dissolve any prison conditions injunction that may exist was filed by intervenors Costa and Gipson.

On November 18, 2005, the parties entered a stipulation and order agreeing that the Rutherford injunction, as modified, would be applicable to the action. Rutherford v. Block, 2005 WL 3388141 (C.D.Cal. Nov. 18, 2005). Settlement negotiations followed, and on June 16, 2006, the parties agreed to convene a panel of experts to determine the methods by which to ameliorate the conditions identified by plaintiffs at Men's Central Jail ("MCJ").

On October 19, 2006, the District Court held a hearing on plaintiff's Order to Show Cause for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. The Court reviewed the declarations and briefs submitted by the parties. Thereafter, the Court toured the MCJ and the Inmate Reception Center ("ICR"). On October 27, 2006, Judge Pregerson ordered the defendants to show cause why they should not be restrained and enjoined from certain practices and conditions regarding cell limits and jail population at the MCJ. Rutherford v. Baca, 2006 WL 3065781 (C.D.Cal. Oct. 27, 2006). On December 11, the court ordered the Sheriff's Department to submit a proposed timeline to the court for alleviating overcrowding at the MJC, with same-day visitation rights granted to the ACLU. On January 25, 2007, Judge Pregerson renewed the preliminary injunction granted on October 27, 2006 directing defendants to remedy the overcrowding problem at the MCJ and IRC. The preliminary injunction was renewed again on April 20, 2007.

Plaintiffs were awarded over $500,000 in attorneys' fees between November 1997 and February 2006. On November 13, 2007, pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, Judge Pregerson awarded plaintiffs $10,000 per month ($160,000) in attorneys' fees and costs for the period of May 2006 to August 2007. On July 29, 2008, pursuant to another joint stipulation, Judge Pregerson awarded attorneys' fees of $10,000 per month for monitoring services from September 2007 to February 2008, and $17,500 per month for three years beginning in March 2008. Judge Pregerson also awarded a one-time lump sum payment of $300,000 to settle other expenses related to this matter, including $70,000 for expert witness expenses incurred as part of the 2006 panel of experts referenced above.

On June 22, 2009, defendants moved for an order enforcing a 1989 stipulation. Under the 1989 stipulation, the parties had agreed that none of the statements made to the ACLU during prisoner interviews or discussions with the Sheriff's staff as part of the ACLU's monitoring activities would be used in other litigation. The purpose of this agreement was to ensure candid interviews in the effort to develop methods to minimize the impact of jail overcrowding. Such access was granted to the ACLU to monitor in return for the promise that the information obtained would not be used in non-Rutherford litigation. Defendants alleged that in June 2008, the ACLU brought another suit (Johnson v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. CV 08-3515)(JC-CA-0059) using prohibited information. Judge Pregerson vacated the defendants' motion on July 31, 2009 after the parties had resolved this issue.

Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Reopen Discovery on June 15, 2009. Plaintiffs claimed they lacked access to necessary information to monitor and cited specific concerns regarding conditions of the jail, including treatment of mental illness and medical care, access to showers, and unsanitary conditions. On August 4, 2009, Judge Pregerson granted the motion to reopen discovery.

On October 8, 2010, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Protective Order, claiming that defendants were retaliating against prisoner class members who communicated with the ACLU about their conditions of confinement. Plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Application for Special Hearing on December 15, 2010. Plaintiffs indicated that they intended to move for enforcement of the Rutherford judgment and requested an evidentiary hearing based on "an escalating crisis of deputy violence, abuse, and inmate suicides." The parties resolved some of the matters related to the Protective Order. According to a joint report filed by the parties on April 20, 2011, defendants agreed to update custody policies to provide prisoners with an open ability to complain about issues of confinement and to prevent retaliation against prisoners who did so; post signage about this policy within various facilities and train relevant personnel on the updated policies; take reasonable steps to protect prisoners who have made claims of retaliation which may include the transfer of a prisoner to another housing location; and notify the ACLU of allegations by any prisoner that he or she has been retaliated against for communicating with the ACLU.

On April 22, 2011, Judge Pregerson ordered the parties to evaluate the current procedures and craft a comprehensive policy to ensure that prisoner complaints were properly handled and processed. Judge Pregerson reserved the question of whether the resulting policy would be incorporated into a court order, a matter on which the parties disagreed. An August 2, 2011 status report confirmed that the modified prisoner complaint policy was complete.

On August 5, 2011, plaintiffs filed a supplement to their October 2010 Motion for Protective Order and requested a decision on the motion. Plaintiffs asserted that the ACLU continued to receive reports of retaliation by Sheriff's Department personnel, and claimed that the policy changes were not a substitute for the relief requested in their Motion for Protective Order. On September 28, 2011, plaintiffs filed an Annual Report of the LA County Jails, which included 72 prisoner declarations describing deputy-on-prisoner beatings, deputy-instigated prisoner-on-prisoner violence, and deputy threats of assaults against prisoners that the ACLU had collected in the past year. Judge Pregerson scheduled an evidentiary hearing on the protective order for October 2011; for a variety of reasons this hearing was continued to several different dates in 2011 and 2012 but never took place. On April 23, 2012, Judge Pregerson held a status conference regarding the evidentiary hearing. It is unclear what transpired at the status conference.

On May 25, 2012, defendants filed a Six Month Status Update of Jail Reforms Containing New Policies and Procedures for the Operation of the Los Angeles County Jail System.

On September 28, 2012, plaintiffs filed an Annual Report on Conditions Inside LA County Jails, which focused on excessive use of deputy-on-prisoner head strikes.

On October 12, 2012, Judge Pregerson vacated a number of motions without prejudice, including the Motion for Protective Order filed by plaintiffs in October 2010.

On March 17, 2015, the action was removed without prejudice from the court's active caseload. The court retained jurisdiction of the action until further application by the parties or court order.

Summary Authors

Dan Dalton (2/12/2007)

Samantha Kirby (11/5/2014)

Chelsea Rinnig (3/21/2018)

Related Cases

Johnson v. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Central District of California (2008)

Rosas v. Baca, Central District of California (2012)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4144855/parties/rutherford-v-block/


Judge(s)

Burger, Warren Earl (District of Columbia)

Gray, William Percival (California)

Hillman, Stephen J. (California)

Lum, Jennifer T. (California)

Pregerson, Dean D. (California)

Tang, Thomas (Arizona)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Bayley, Kevin Michael (California)

Bhatti, Umbreen (California)

Bird, Melinda R. (California)

Bronstein, Alvin J. (District of Columbia)

Judge(s)

Burger, Warren Earl (District of Columbia)

Gray, William Percival (California)

Hillman, Stephen J. (California)

Lum, Jennifer T. (California)

Pregerson, Dean D. (California)

Tang, Thomas (Arizona)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Bayley, Kevin Michael (California)

Bhatti, Umbreen (California)

Bird, Melinda R. (California)

Bronstein, Alvin J. (District of Columbia)

Dai, Cornelia (California)

Diaz, Richard Brian (California)

Eckert, Helen C (California)

Eliasberg, Peter J. (California)

Fathi, David Cyrus (District of Columbia)

Garcia, Ricardo D. (California)

Gipson, Benjamin M (California)

Green, Tiffany (California)

Keeny, Christy Virginia (California)

Martin, Gregory A. (California)

Masters, Anna Segobia (California)

Miller, Gary Neal (California)

Muller, James S. (California)

Natarajan, Ranjana (California)

Parks, Shawna L (California)

Pearlman, Paula D. (California)

Price, Jessica G. (California)

Reisman, Erin Kristina (California)

Rosenbaum, Mark Dale (California)

Sagheb, S Shane (California)

Smerek, Stephen R. (California)

Smerling, Terry (California)

Stormer, Dan Lewis (California)

Strugar, Matthew D. (California)

Teukolsky, Lauren K. (California)

Ulin, John C. (California)

Uzeta, Michelle (California)

Walker, Amanda N (California)

Winter, Margaret (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Allen, Matthew Philip (California)

Beach, Paul B (California)

Bennett, Frederick R. (California)

Clark, Justin W. (California)

Ellyatt, Patricia E (California)

Granbo, Roger H. (California)

Larson, John H. (California)

Maranga, Kenneth A (California)

Peterson, John Francis (California)

Plowden, Geoffrey R (California)

Other Attorney(s)

Goller, Karlene Worthington (California)

Sager, Kelli L. (California)

Seager, Susan E. (California)

Wickers, Alonzo B. IV (California)

Yagman, Marion R. (California)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket [Related Case]

Arthur Michael Fernandez v. City of Los Angeles

July 15, 2010 Docket

Docket (PACER)

Oct. 12, 2012 Docket

Opinion

Rutherford v. Pitchess

457 F.Supp. 104

July 25, 1978 Order/Opinion

Opinion

Rutherford v. Pitchess

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

626 F.2d 866

Aug. 8, 1980 Order/Opinion

Opinion

Rutherford v. Pitchess

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

710 F.2d 572

July 14, 1983 Order/Opinion

Opinion

Block v. Rutherford

Supreme Court of the United States

464 U.S. 959, 78 L.Ed.2d 334

Nov. 7, 1983 Order/Opinion

Opinion

Supreme Court of the United States

486 U.S. 576, 104 S.Ct. 3227

July 3, 1994 Order/Opinion
50

Order Granting Defendants’ Ex Parte Application for an Order Continuing the Hearing on Proposed Intervenors’ Motion for Permissive Invervention and to Dissolve Injunction, and Extending the Deadline for Defendants to File an Opposition Thereto

Oct. 18, 2005 Order/Opinion
64

Stipulation and Order re: Injunction

Nov. 18, 2005 Settlement Agreement
81

Order relating to "Orientation Tour" of Jail

May 10, 2006 Order/Opinion

Resources

Title Description External URL

Block v. Rutherford

Oyez

Respondents were inmates being held in Los Angeles County Central Jail (Central Jail) prior to their trials. Central Jail did not allow inmates to have contact visits with spouses, children, or other… March 28, 1984 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1983/83-317

The Oyez Project, Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576 (1984).

Oyez Project

Information about the Supreme Court litigation in this case, including an audio recording of the oral argument, and the written opinion. July 3, 1984 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_83_317/

Coping with a Lawsuit: The Sheriff's Viewpoint

Sherman Block

Oct. 1, 1987

After the Litigation: An Approach to Jail Management Under a Jail Condition Court Order in Los Angeles County (Part 1)

Bennett, Frederick R.

July 1, 1992

After the Litigation: An Approach to Jail Management Under a Jail Condition Court Order in Los Angeles County (Part 2)

Frederick R. Bennett

Sept. 1, 1992

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4144855/rutherford-v-block/

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

ECF Number Description Date Link

COMPLAINT (Summons(es) issued) (ca) Modified on 11/08/2002

Dec. 9, 1975 PACER

CASE REOPENED (lisp)

March 1, 1992 PACER

ORDER by Judge Manuel L. Real tht the Clrk is directed to rasgn all closed cases previously assigned to Senior Judge Gray, on an as needed and random basis, through the civil assignment. (Order filed on 3/3/92) Case reassigned to Judge Richard Gadbois for all further proceedings (cc: all counsel) (et) Modified on 11/08/2002

Feb. 9, 1993 PACER

ORDER by Judge Wm. M. Byrne that an award of atty's fees in the amt of $16,000.00 for the time period of 8/97 - 9/97 is hereby GRANTED. (el) Modified on 11/08/2002

Nov. 12, 1997 PACER

Joint STIPULATION for ord re atty fees filed (lori) Modified on 11/08/2002

April 6, 1999 PACER

ORDER by Judge Wm. M. Byrne re stipulation [4-1]: an ward of atty's fees in the amt of $20,000 for the ti pd of Jan & FEb 1999 was gr. (lori) Modified on 11/08/2002

April 8, 1999 PACER

JOINT STIPULATION filed for ord re attorney fees (jag) Modified on 11/08/2002

Oct. 7, 1999 PACER

ORDER by Judge Wm. M. Byrne; Good cause appearing therefor, an award of atty's fees in the amt of $20,000 for the time period of July & Aug 1999 is GRANTED. (jag) Modified on 11/08/2002

Oct. 7, 1999 PACER

JOINT STIPULATION filed for attorney fees ;lodged ord (lc) Modified on 11/08/2002

May 3, 2001 PACER

ORDER by Judge Terry J. Hatter upon stipulation that attorney fees in amt of $11,653.75 awarded for Januray & February 2001 is hereby granted [8-1] (lc) Modified on 11/08/2002

May 7, 2001 PACER

STIPULATION and ORDER FOR ORDER RE ATTY FEES an ward of attys fees in the amount of $16,426.87 for the time period of July & August 2001 is hereby granted by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall (pj) Modified on 11/08/2002

Oct. 5, 2001 PACER

STIPULATION filed for order re atty fees ; Decl of Mark D Rosenbaum; lodged propsd ord (el) Modified on 11/08/2002

Dec. 18, 2001 PACER

ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall re Attorney fees in the amount of $20,000.00 for the time period of September and October, 2001 is hereby granted (el)

Dec. 20, 2001 PACER

JOINT STIPULATION filed for order re attorney fees ; Decl of Mark D Rosenbaum (el)

Jan. 16, 2002 PACER

ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall granting stipulation for order re attorney fees [0-1], in the amount of $20,000.00 for the time period of November and December, 2001 (el)

Jan. 22, 2002 PACER

JOINT STIPULATION filed for order re attorney fees, Decl of Mark D Rosenbaum (el) Modified on 11/08/2002

March 18, 2002 PACER

ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, that an award of attorney's fees [12-1], [11-1], in the amount of $20,000.00 for the time period of January and February 2002 is hereby GRANTED. (el) Modified on 11/08/2002

March 19, 2002 PACER

JOINT STIPULATION filed for order re attys' fees in the amt of $20,000.00 for all efforts for April & May, 2002 be granted based upon decl of Mark D Rosenbaum (el) Modified on 11/08/2002

May 14, 2002 PACER

LODGED/PROPOSED ORDER submitted by plaintiff Dennis Rutherford for stipulation for order re attys' fees in the amt of $20,000.00 for all efforts for April & May, 2002 be granted based upon decl of Mark D Rosenbaum [14-1] .(FWD TO CRD) (el)

May 14, 2002 PACER

ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall that the stipulation for order re attys' fees in the amt of $20,000.00 for all efforts for April & May, 2002 be granted based upon decl of Mark D Rosenbaum [14-1]; is hereby GRANTED. (el) Modified on 11/08/2002

May 30, 2002 PACER

JOINT STIPULATION For Ord Re Attorney Fees filed; IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED & AGREED by & between plf's cnsl & dfts' cnsl that an award of attys' fees in the amount of $20,000.00 for all efforts during the months of May & June, 2002 in the above entitled actn be granted based upon the decl of Mark D Rosenbuam, & any attachments filed herewith ; Decl of Mark Rosenbaum; Lodged propsd order (nhac) Modified on 11/08/2002

July 11, 2002 PACER

ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall granting stipulation IT that an award of attys' fees in the amount of $20,000.00 for all efforts during the months of May & June, 2002 in the above entitled actn be granted based upon the decl of Mark D Rosenbuam, & any attachments filed herewith [0-1], in the amount of $20,000.00 for the time period of May and June, 2002 is hereby Granted. (el)

July 11, 2002 PACER

JOINT STIPULATION filed for order re atty fees ; decl of Mark D Rosenbaum (pj) Modified on 11/08/2002

Sept. 24, 2002 PACER

ORDER: Award of attys fees in the amount of $20,000.00 for the time period of July & August, 2002 is hereby granted by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall [17-1] (pj) Modified on 11/08/2002

Oct. 1, 2002 PACER

PLACED IN FILE - NOT USED Order re attorney fees for May and June 2002 (el)

Oct. 3, 2002 PACER

DECLARATION of Karen Erickson by plaintiff Dennis Rutherford re entry of atty fee order [0-1] (el)

Nov. 22, 2002 PACER
6

JOINT STIPULATION filed for attorney fees of $20,000.00 for November and December 2002 ; lodged order (lc) (Entered: 09/03/2003)

Aug. 28, 2003 PACER
7

JOINT STIPULATION filed for attorney fees in amount of $20,000.00 for January and February 2003 ; lodged order (lc) (Entered: 09/03/2003)

Aug. 28, 2003 PACER
8

JOINT STIPULATION filed for attorney fees amount of $20,000.00 for March and April 2003 ; lodged order (lc) (Entered: 09/03/2003)

Aug. 28, 2003 PACER
9

JOINT STIPULATION filed for attorney fees amount of $20,000.00 for May and June 2003 ; lodged order (lc) (Entered: 09/03/2003)

Aug. 28, 2003 PACER
10

JOINT STIPULATION filed for attorney fees amount of $20,000.00 ;lodged order (lc) (Entered: 09/03/2003)

Aug. 28, 2003 PACER

REMARK: pursuant to procedures re old paper dockets, number series started with 01; 8/29/03 order re attorney fees needed to be "send" (lc)

Aug. 29, 2003 PACER
1

ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall directing attorney fees for $20,000.00 for period November and December 2002 (lc) (Entered: 09/02/2003)

Aug. 29, 2003 PACER
2

ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall directing attorney fees in amount of $20,000.00 for the period September and October 2002 (lc) (Entered: 09/02/2003)

Aug. 29, 2003 PACER
3

ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall directing attorney fees in amount of $20,000.00 for time period January and February 2003 (lc) (Entered: 09/02/2003)

Aug. 29, 2003 PACER
4

ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall directing attorney fees in amount of $20,000.00 for period March and April 2003 (lc) (Entered: 09/02/2003)

Aug. 29, 2003 PACER
5

ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall directing attorney fees in amount of $20,000.00 for period of May and June 2003 (lc) (Entered: 09/02/2003)

Aug. 29, 2003 PACER
11

JOINT STIPULATION filed for attorney fees ; declaraton of Mark D Rosenbaum; lodged order (lc) (Entered: 09/25/2003)

Sept. 24, 2003 PACER
12

ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall granting attorney fees in amount of $20,000.00 for time period July and August 2003 upon stipulation [11-1] (lc) (Entered: 10/03/2003)

Oct. 1, 2003 PACER
13

JOINT STIPULATION filed for order re attorney fees ; declaration of Mark D Rosenbaum; lodged order (lc) (Entered: 12/03/2003)

Dec. 2, 2003 PACER
14

ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall granting stipulation for order re attorney fees in amount of $20,000.00 for September and October 2003 [13-1] (lc) (Entered: 12/05/2003)

Dec. 4, 2003 PACER
15

JOINT STIPULATION for Order on attorney fees; declaration of Mark D Rosenbaum filed Lodged order. (lc, ) (Entered: 01/28/2004)

Jan. 23, 2004 PACER
16

ORDER granting attorney fees of $20,000.00 for November and December 2003 15 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall(lc, ) (Entered: 01/28/2004)

Jan. 23, 2004 PACER
17

STIPULATION for Order regarding attorney fees; declaration of Mark D Rsoenbaum filed by plaintiff Dennis Rutherford. Lodged order. (lc, ) (Entered: 03/11/2004)

March 10, 2004 PACER
18

ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall granting Stipulation for Order of attorneys fees in amount of $20,000.00 for Januray and February 2004 17 (lc, ) (Entered: 03/25/2004)

March 23, 2004 PACER
19

STIPULATION for Order for attorneys fees; declaration of Mark D Rosenbaum filed by plaintiff Dennis Rutherford. Lodged order. (lc, ) (Entered: 05/21/2004)

May 13, 2004 PACER
20

ORDER granting award of attorney fees in amount of $20,000.00 for March and April 2004 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall 19 (lc, ) (Entered: 05/24/2004)

May 17, 2004 PACER
21

STIPULATION for attorney fees; declaration of Mark D Rosenbaum filed by plaintiff Dennis Rutherford. Lodged order. (lc, ) (Entered: 07/27/2004)

July 23, 2004 PACER
22

ORDER granting award of attorney fees in amount of $20,000.00 for May and June 2004 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall 21 (lc, ) Modified on 7/30/2004 (lc, ). (Entered: 07/30/2004)

July 26, 2004 PACER
23

JOINT STIPULATION for Order Re Attorney Fees in the amount of $20,000.00 for all efforts during the months of September and October, 2004 filed by plaintiff Dennis Rutherford. Lodged Proposed Order. (nhac, ) (Entered: 11/29/2004)

Nov. 24, 2004 PACER
24

JOINT STIPULATION for Order Re Attorney Fees in the amount of $20,000.00 for all efforts during the months of July and August, 2004 filed by plaintiff Dennis Rutherford. Lodged Proposed Order. (nhac, ) (Entered: 11/29/2004)

Nov. 24, 2004 PACER
25

ORDER Regarding Attorney Fes by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Good cause appearing therefor, an award of attorneys fees in the amount of $20,000.00 for the time period of July and August, 2004 24 is hereby granted.(nhac, ) (Entered: 11/29/2004)

Nov. 24, 2004 PACER
26

ORDER Regarding Attorney Fes by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Good cause appearing therefor, an award of attorneys fees in the amount of $20,000.00 for the time period of September and October, 2004 23 is hereby granted.(nhac, ) (Entered: 11/29/2004)

Nov. 24, 2004 PACER
27

JOINT STIPULATION for Order Re Attorney Fees; Declaration of Mark D. Rosenbaum. Lodged Proposed Order. (gk, ) (Entered: 03/17/2005)

March 14, 2005 PACER
28

ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall upon Joint Stipulation 27 that an award of attorney's fees in the amount of $20,000.00 for the time period of November and December, 2004 is hereby granted. (gk, ) (Entered: 03/17/2005)

March 16, 2005 PACER
29

NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT OF CASE due to Unavailability of Judicial Officer filed. The previously asssigned District Judge is no longer available. Pursuant to directive of the Chief District Judge and in accordance with the rules of this Court, the case has been returned to the Clerk for reassignment. This case has been reassigned to Judge Margaret M. Morrow for all further proceedings. Case number will now read CV 75-4111 MMM. (rn, ) (Entered: 08/29/2005)

Aug. 29, 2005 PACER
31

EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order of Permissive Intervention and to Dissove any Prison Conditions Injunction that May Exist Immediate Relief Requested filed by Proposed Intervenor M. Quintana. Lodged Proposed Order. (gk, ) (Entered: 09/01/2005)

Aug. 29, 2005 PACER
30

NOTICE of Association of Counsel associating attorney Paul B. Beach of Franscell, Strickland, Roberts and Lawrence with Roger H. Granbo, Office of County Counsel, on behalf of Defendant Sherman Block. (gk, ) (Entered: 09/01/2005)

Aug. 31, 2005 PACER
32

OPPOSITION to Ex Parte Application for Intervention and Dissolution of Injunction 31 filed by Plaintiff Dennis Rutherford. (gk, ) (Entered: 09/01/2005)

Aug. 31, 2005 PACER
33

PRELIMINARY OPPOSITION to Non-Party M. Quintana's Ex Parte Application for an Order to Intervene in Case and to Dissolve Injunction 31 filed by Defendant Sherman Block; memorandum of points and authorities and declarations of Roger Granbo and Justin W. Clark in support thereof. (gk, ) (Entered: 09/01/2005)

Aug. 31, 2005 PACER
34

DECLARATION of Mark Rosenbaum in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Ex Parte Application for Intervention and Dissolution of Injunction 31 filed by Plaintiff Dennis Rutherford. (gk, ) (Entered: 09/01/2005)

Aug. 31, 2005 PACER
35

THE MOST RECENT PRONOUNCEMENT from the Ninth Circuit on Injunctive Relief, in Connection with Intervenor's Application to Intervene, etc. 31 filed by Applicant/Intervenor M. Quintana. (gk, ) (Entered: 09/01/2005)

Aug. 31, 2005 PACER
37

Substitution of Attorney filed. Substituting attorney Roger H. Granbo, on behalf of Defendant Sherman Block, in place and stead of Gary Miller by Judge Margaret M. Morrow.(gk, ) (Entered: 09/01/2005)

Aug. 31, 2005 PACER
36

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Counsel are notified that the Ex Parte Application for Order of Permissive Intervention and to Dissolve any Prison Conditions Injunction that may Exist Immediate Relief Requested 31 is hereby denied. Court Reporter: None Present. (gk, ) (Entered: 09/01/2005)

Sept. 1, 2005 PACER

PLACED IN FILE - NOT USED re Proposed ORder On Ex Parte Application for Order of Permissive Intervention and to Dissolve any Prison Conditions injunction that May exist submitted by Intervenor M Quintana. (yl, )

Sept. 1, 2005 PACER
39

REPLY ON HIS INTENOR'S EX PARTE APPLICATION For Order of permissive Intervention and to Dissolve Any Prison Conditions Injunction that May Exist, on Issue of Mootness 31 filed by Intervenor M Quintana. (yl, ) (Entered: 09/13/2005)

Sept. 1, 2005 PACER
40

REPLY ON HIS INTERVENOR'S EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order of Permissive Intervention and to Dissolve any Prison Conditions Injunction that May Exist 31 filed by Intervenor M Quintana. (yl, ) (Entered: 09/13/2005)

Sept. 1, 2005 PACER
41

JOINT STIPULATION for Order re Attorney Fees in the amount of $20,000.00 for all efforts during the months of January and February, 2005; declaration of Mark D. Rosen. Lodged Proposed Order. (gk, ) (Entered: 09/14/2005)

Sept. 7, 2005 PACER
42

JOINT STIPULATION for Order re Attorney Fees in the amount of $20,000.00 for all efforts during the months of March and April, 2005; declaration of Mark D. Rosen. (gk, ) (Entered: 09/14/2005)

Sept. 7, 2005 PACER
43

NOTICE OF APPEAL to 9th CCA filed by intervenor Martin Quintana. Appeal of Order 36 Filed On: 09/01/05; Entered On: 09/01/05. Filing fee $ 255. Billed. cc: Stephen Yagman; Mark Rosenbaum. (cbr, ) (Entered: 09/16/2005)

Sept. 12, 2005 PACER

Civil Appeals Docketing Statement received from Martin Quintana forwarded to 9th CCA. RE: Appeal to Circuit Court 43 . (cbr, )

Sept. 12, 2005 PACER
44

TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDERING FORM For Dates: None requested; Re: Appeal to Circuit Court 43 . (cbr, ) (Entered: 09/16/2005)

Sept. 12, 2005 PACER
38

ORDER TRANSFERRING CIVIL ACTION pursuant to Section 3.1 of General Order 224. ORDER case transfered from Judge Margaret M. Morrow to the calendar of Judge Dean D. Pregerson for all further proceedings. The case number will now reflect the initials of the transferee Judge CV 75-4111 DDP. Signed by Judge Margaret M. Morrow and Judge Dean D. Pregerson.(rn, ) (Entered: 09/13/2005)

Sept. 13, 2005 PACER
45

CERTIFICATE OF RECORD Transmitted to USCA re Appeal to Circuit Court 43 filed by M Quintana. (cbr, ) (Entered: 09/20/2005)

Sept. 20, 2005 PACER

Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re: Appeal to Circuit Court 43 . (cbr, )

Sept. 20, 2005 PACER
47

ORDER RE ATTORNEY FEES by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFOR, an award of attorney fees in the amount of $20,000.00 for the time period of March and ?April, 2005 41 is hereby GRANTED. (jp, ) (Entered: 09/29/2005)

Sept. 21, 2005 PACER
46

NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 05-56402, 9TH CCA regarding Appeal to Circuit Court 43 filed by M Quintana. (sv) (Entered: 09/23/2005)

Sept. 23, 2005 PACER

APPEAL FEE PAID: re Appeal to Circuit Court 43 ; Receipt Number: 78671 in the amount of $255. (cbr, )

Sept. 28, 2005 PACER
48

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order of Permissive Intervention and to Dissolve Any Prison Conditions Injunction That May Exit filed by Proposed Intervenors S.A. Thomas, E.P. Gipson, M. Quintana, L. Mora, R. Costa, J. Lozada, and M. Hernandez, Motion set for hearing on 11/7/2005 at 10:00 AM before Honorable Dean D. Pregerson. (gk, ) (Entered: 10/17/2005)

Oct. 12, 2005 PACER
49

EX PARTE APPLICATION for an Order Continuing the Hearing on Proposed Intervenors' Motion for Permissive Intervention and to Dissolve Injunction 48 and Extending the Deadline for Defendants to File an Opposition Thereto filed by Defendants Sherman Block, et al.; memorandum of points and authorities and declaration of Justin W. Clark in support thereof. Lodged Proposed Order. (gk, ) (Entered: 10/18/2005)

Oct. 13, 2005 PACER
51

OPPOSITION to EX PARTE APPLICATION to take off calendar or to Continue Intervenors' Motion for Order of Permissive Intervention and to Dissolve any prison conditions injunction that may exists 49 filed by proposed intervenors M Quintana, E P Gipson, M Hernandez, J Lozada, S A Thomas. (ca, ) (Entered: 10/19/2005)

Oct. 14, 2005 PACER
52

EX PARTE APPLICATION for an Order to extend time to respond to proposed intervenors motion to intervene and dissolve the injunction and to reschedule the hearing filed by plaintiffs Dennis Rutherford. Ex Parte Application set for hearing on 10/31/2005 at 10:00 AM before Honorable Dean D. Pregerson. Lodged Proposed Order. (ca, ) (Entered: 10/19/2005)

Oct. 14, 2005 PACER
53

MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Support of EX PARTE APPLICATION for an Order to extend time to respond to proposed intervenors motion to intervene and dissolve the injunction and to reschedule the hearing on the motion 52 filed by plaintiff Dennis Rutherford. (ca, ) (Entered: 10/19/2005)

Oct. 14, 2005 PACER
54

DECLARATIONS of Peter Eliasberg and Jody Kent in support of EX PARTE APPLICATION for an Order to extend time to respond to proposed intervenors motion to intervene and dissolve the injunction and to reschedule the hearing 52 filed by plaintiff Dennis Rutherford. (ca, ) (Entered: 10/19/2005)

Oct. 14, 2005 PACER
55

OPPOSITION to plaintiffs ex parte application to take off calendar or to continue intervenors MOTION for order of permissive Intervention and to dissove any prison conditions injunction that may exist. 48 filed by proposed intervenors M Quintana, R Costa, E P Gipson, M Hernandez, S A Thomas. (yc, ) (Entered: 10/19/2005)

Oct. 17, 2005 PACER
50

ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson that Defendants' Ex Parte Application for an Order Continuing the Hearing on Proposed Intervenors' Motion for Permissive Intervention and to Dissolve Injunction and Extending the Deadline for Defendants to File an Opposition Thereto 49 is granted. Resetting Hearing and Deadlines as to Motion for Order of Permissive Intervention and to Dissolve Any Prison Conditions Injunction That May Exit 48, Motion set for hearing on 11/14/2005 at 10:00 AM before Honorable Dean D. Pregerson. Defendants Opposition to Motion due 10/31/2005. Proposed Intervenors to file any Reply by 11/7/2005. (gk, ) (Entered: 10/18/2005)

Oct. 18, 2005 PACER
56

Joint Report of The Prties to the Court Regarding Meet and Confer Discussions to Existing Injunction Regarding Bed filed by Plaintiff Dennis Rutherford. (yl, ) (Entered: 10/25/2005)

Oct. 20, 2005 PACER
57

OPPOSITION to Proposed Intervenors MOTION for Order for to Dissolve Any Prison Conditions Injunction That May Exit 48 filed by defendant Sherman Block. (jp, ) (Entered: 11/02/2005)

Oct. 31, 2005 PACER
58

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES in Opposition to Proposed Intervenors MOTION to Intervene and Dissolve the injunction 48 filed by plaintiff Dennis Rutherford. (jp, ) (Entered: 11/02/2005)

Oct. 31, 2005 PACER
59

DECLARATION of JODY KENT in Oppositiont to Proposed Intervenors MOTION to Intervene and Dissolve the Injunction 48 filed by plaintiff Dennis Rutherford. (jp, ) (Entered: 11/02/2005)

Oct. 31, 2005 PACER
60

AMENDED PROOF OF SERVICE of MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES in Oppositiont to Proposed Intervenors MOTION to Intervene and Dissolve the Injunction 58, Declaration of JODY KENT in Oppositiont to Proposed Intervenors MOTION to Intervene and Dissolve the Injunction 59, was served on 10/31/2005 filed by plaintiff Dennis Rutherford. (jp, ) (Entered: 11/03/2005)

Nov. 1, 2005 PACER
61

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: On the Court's own motion, the Motion for Order of Permissive Intervention and to Dissolve Any Prison Conditions Injunction That May Exist 48 set for hearing 11/14/2005 at 10:00 AM is hereby vacated. Court Reporter: None Present. (gk, ) (Entered: 11/08/2005)

Nov. 7, 2005 PACER
62

Notice of Withdrawal Without Prejudice of MOTION for Order of Permissive Intervention and to Dissolve Any Prison Conditions Injunction That May Exit 48 filed by intervenors R Costa, E P Gipson, J Lozada, L Mora, S A Thomas. (jp, ) (Entered: 11/16/2005)

Nov. 7, 2005 PACER
63

CONFIDENTIAL JOINT STATUS REPORT Re Settlement filed by Plaintiffs and Defendants. (gk, ) (Entered: 11/16/2005)

Nov. 15, 2005 PACER
64

ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson,The parties agree that the Rutherford injunction, as modified herein, shall be applicable to this action as set forth below.INJUNCTION(1)Every inmate kept overnight in the jail will be accorded a mattress and a bunk upon which to sleep.(2)"Bunk" shall be as defined at Section 1272 ("Mattresses") of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations and Section 470A.3.5("Beds") of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.(3)All bunks shall be supplied with full bedding. Bedding shall mean the Standard Bedding and Linen Issue as set forth in Title 15 at Section 1270 of the California Code of Regulations.(4)The defendants may not house an inmate on a bunk in the freeways in the Men's Central Jail.(5)Inmates shall not be housed in any area where there is not reasonably close access to toilets.(6)In the event an inmate is not accorded a mattress and bunk upon which to sleep, for each such inmate, the defendants shall record that fact on a form. This form shall be entitled Record of Inmate Without A Bunk. This form shall contain the following information:A)the inmate's name;B)the inmate's booking number;C)the date; and,D) the reason. This form shall be prepared for each inmate on the night on which the inmate was not accorded a mattress and bunk upon which to sleep. The forms shall be accessible to counsel for plaintiffs contemporaneously at the jail facilities and provided by defendants to counsel for plaintiffs and counsel for plaintiffs in the Thomas matter every 30 to 60 days.(7)In addition, the defendants shall provide counsel for plaintiffs via e-mail on a daily basis a summary of the total number of inmates who have been kept overnight without a mattress and a bunk upon which to sleep.(8)Nothing in this injunction is intended to establish a constitutional standard. The parties do not waive their right to assert a different standard or standards in any later proceedings.(jc, ) (Entered: 11/18/2005)

Nov. 18, 2005 PACER
65

JOINT STIPULATION for Order Re Attorney Fees in the amount of $20,000.00 for all efforts during the months of May and June, 2005; declaration of Mark D. Rosenbaum. Lodged Proposed Order. (gk, ) (Entered: 12/06/2005)

Dec. 1, 2005 PACER
66

JOINT STIPULATION for Order Re Attorney Fees in the amount of $20,000.00 for all efforts during the months of July and August, 2005; declaration of Mark D. Rosenbaum. Lodged Proposed Order. (gk, ) (Entered: 12/06/2005)

Dec. 1, 2005 PACER
67

JOINT STIPULATION for Order Re Attorney Fees in the amount of $20,000.00 for all efforts during the months of September and October, 2005; declaration of Mark D. Rosenbaum. Lodged Proposed Order. (gk, ) (Entered: 12/06/2005)

Dec. 1, 2005 PACER
68

ORDER RE ATTORNEY FEES by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: An Award of Attorney Fees in the amount of $20,000.00 for the time period of May and June, 2005 65 is hereby granted. (gk, ) (Entered: 12/09/2005)

Dec. 6, 2005 PACER
69

ORDER RE ATTORNEY FEES by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: An Award of Attorney Fees in the amount of $20,000.00 for the time period of July andAugust, 2005 66 is hereby granted.(gk, ) (Entered: 12/09/2005)

Dec. 6, 2005 PACER

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Jail Conditions

Special Collection(s):

California Jail Population Caps

Key Dates

Filing Date: Feb. 9, 1975

Case Ongoing: Perhaps, but long-dormant

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Pre-trial detainees incarcerated at the Los Angeles County Jail.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

ACLU National (all projects)

ACLU of Southern California

Hadsell, Stormer & Renick

NDRN/Protection & Advocacy Organizations

Public Counsel

ACLU National Prison Project

ACLU Affiliates (any)

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: Unknown

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Los Angeles County Sheriff (Los Angeles, Los Angeles), County

Defendant Type(s):

Corrections

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Monetary Relief

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

U.S. Supreme Court merits opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Attorneys fees

Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: over $1.6 million

Order Duration: 1978 - None

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief granted

Implement complaint/dispute resolution process

Monitoring

Issues

General:

Access to lawyers or judicial system

Assault/abuse by staff

Conditions of confinement

Food service / nutrition / hydration

Grievance Procedures

Phone

Recreation / Exercise

Sanitation / living conditions

Search policies

Totality of conditions

Visiting

Crowding:

Crowding / caseload

Medical/Mental Health:

Medical care, general

Mental health care, general

Type of Facility:

Government-run