Case: Madrid v. Gomez

3:90-cv-03094 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Filed Date: Oct. 26, 1990

Closed Date: 2011

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On October 26, 1990, prisoners at the Pelican Bay State Prison in Crescent City, California filed a class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the California Department of Corrections in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs, represented by the Prison Law Office, alleged that the conditions of their confinement were unconstitutional, and they asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the …

On October 26, 1990, prisoners at the Pelican Bay State Prison in Crescent City, California filed a class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the California Department of Corrections in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs, represented by the Prison Law Office, alleged that the conditions of their confinement were unconstitutional, and they asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants unconstitutionally condoned a pattern and practice of using excessive force against inmates, failed to provide inmates with adequate medical and mental health care, imposed inhumane conditions in the Security Housing Unit, utilized cell-assignment procedures that exposed inmates to an unreasonable risk of assault from other inmates, failed to provide adequate procedural safeguards when segregating the prison gang affiliates in the Security Housing Unit, and failed to provide inmates with adequate access to the courts.

On January 10, 1995, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Judge Thelton E. Henderson) granted injunctive relief to the plaintiffs, holding that: 1) there was unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain and use of excessive force at the prison; 2) prison officials did not provide inmates with constitutionally adequate medical and mental health care; 3) conditions of confinement in the Security Housing Unit, which included extreme isolation and environmental deprivation, imposed cruel and unusual punishment on mentally ill prisoners; 4) some procedures used to validate inmates as gang members and thus transfer them to the Security Housing Unit violated due process. The court then appointed Thomas F. Lonergan to serve as Special Master for the case, and ordered the defendants to pay him $125 per hour. The court ordered the parties to work with the Special Master in good faith to develop a remedial plan addressing the constitutional violations and to submit the plan to the court within 120 days. Madrid v. Gomez, 889 F.Supp. 1146 (N.D.Cal. 1995). The defendants appealed. The defendants' remedial plan seems to have been adopted on Feb. 5, 1996.

On September 21, 1995, the parties stipulated to, and the district court (Judge Henderson) authorized, an "informal process" of expediting the payments of attorneys' fees. Pursuant to the stipulation, the defendants were to pay fees at the current market rate for all legal services that were useful and necessary to ensure compliance. If the defendants ever disputed an amount and refused to pay, the plaintiffs could seek an order from the district court to resolve the dispute. On April 26, 1996, Congress passed the PLRA, which limited the amount of attorneys' fees that can be awarded to prisoners' counsel by capping the maximum hourly rate and prohibiting payment of fees that are not directly and reasonably incurred in proving a violation of prisoners' rights.

The defendants asked the district court to modify its order that they must pay the hourly rate of the special master. They argued that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) applied retrospectively to this case, and that the PLRA required the court to reset the special master's rate and the judiciary to bear the expense of paying him. On August 23, 1996, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Judge Henderson) denied the request, holding that the PLRA did not apply retroactively to this case because this case did not provide for prospective relief. Madrid v. Gomez, 940 F.Supp. 247 (N.D.Cal. 1996). The defendants appealed this ruling. On October 28, 1996, the district court (Judge Henderson) made an award of attorneys' fees for legal services performed prior to the enactment of the PLRA.

On December 24, 1996, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Judge Betty Binns Fletcher, Judge Joseph Jerome Farris, and Judge Atsushi Wallace Tashima) denied the appeal, holding that the district court's determinations were not clearly erroneous. Wilson v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Eastern Dist. of California, 103 F.3d 828 (9th Cir. 1996). The defendants appealed. On May 19, 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal. Wilson v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Eastern Dist. of California, 520 U.S. 1230 (1997).

On June 13, 1997, the district court ordered payment of fees for services performed subsequent to the enactment of the PLRA. The district court reasoned that applying the attorneys' fee limitations to a case which was pending at the time of the statute's enactment would produce a retroactive effect, violating basic notions of fair notice, reasonable reliance, and settled expectations. The defendants appealed.

On July 2, 1998, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Judge Harlington Wood, Jr., Judge Cynthia Holcomb Hall, and Judge Diarmuid Fionntain O'Scannlain) reversed the district court's decision with respect to post-enactment fee awards, holding: 1) that the PLRA's attorney-fee provisions apply to all post-enactment awards, regardless of when the case was filed and regardless of when the legal services were provided; 2) that given the attorneys' unsettled expectations when they took the case, the PLRA would not have an improper retroactive effect if applied here; 3) that strict scrutiny did not apply to the prisoners' claim that the PLRA violated their equal protection rights; and 4) that the PLRA's attorney-fee provisions did not violate the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. Madrid v. Gomez, 150 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 1998).

On August 30, 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Judge Wood, Judge Hall, and Judge O'Scannlain) superseded their July 2, 1998 decision, partially affirming and partially reversing the previous ruling. The court held: 1) that the fee limitations of the PLRA did not apply to awards that were entered after the PLRA's enactment but covered services performed prior to enactment; 2) that the PLRA's attorney fee limitations still applied to fee awards entered after the PLRA's effective date, covering fees incurred after that date; 3) that strict scrutiny did not apply to the prisoners' claim that the PLRA violated their equal protection rights; and 4) that the PLRA satisfied the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. Madrid v. Gomez, 190 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 1999).

Some use-of-force monitoring was terminated by the district court (Judge Henderson) on July 12, 2000 and July 10, 2002.

On November 17, 2004, after a lengthy investigation and report by the new Special Master, John Hagar, the district court (Judge Henderson) found a series of systematic problems in the California Department of Corrections' compliance monitoring in the case of Pelican Bay. The court noted that the defendants' system for investigating and disciplining officers was "broken to the core," and that the defendants had deliberately misled the court by filing false reports. The court gave defendant Thomas Moore two weeks to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for misleading the court through false reports. The court then ordered the defendants to work with the Special Master to develop a remedial plan to address the problems with the investigations. The court also partially granted the motion of the California Correctional Peace Officers' Association (CCPOA) to intervene, ordering them to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for misleading the court. Madrid v. Woodford, C90-3094, 2004 WL 2623924 (N.D.Cal. Nov. 17, 2004).

On March 16, 2005, the district court (Judge Henderson) sanctioned defendant Moore in the amount of $1,500.00, payable within two weeks. The court declined to sanction the CCPOA. On January 13, 2006, the district court ordered the defendants to fund and fill the following full time positions at the prison: one additional registered nurse, one additional psychiatrist or psychologist, one additional associate government program analyst, three additional office technicians, three additional medical records technicians, two additional primary care providers.

The district court (Judge Henderson) ordered the cessation of health services monitoring on May 23, 2008 (2008 WL 2200051). The district court noted that while monitoring would cease in the Madrid context, it would continue on a statewide basis as part of two statewide class actions: Plata v. Brown, No. C01-1351 TEH (N.D. Cal) and Coleman v. Brown, No. CIV S-90-0520 LKK JFM P (E.D. Cal). As Pelican Bay State Prison was subject to the jurisdiction of the Coleman court, the district court ordered defendants to work with the Special Master and experts in Coleman to address two issues: 1) ensure that Pelican Bay developed and implemented policies and procedures consistent with the Coleman remedial plan, and 2) determine the best course of action concerning two mental health "pilot projects" at Pelican Bay.

The final phase of this case involved the monitoring of California Department of Corrections investigations and disciplinary processes. In a November 16, 2006 order the district court stated that "effective investigation and discipline systems" were "the final cornerstone of Defendants' use-of-force remedy." On October 16, 2008, the Special Master submitted a report recommending the termination of all remaining force-related orders. Plaintiffs did not object to the cessation of monitoring, but argued that termination of force-related orders was inappropriate because defendants had not filed notice that they had implemented a statewide use-of-force policy. On August 30, 2010, defendants notified the court that such a policy had been adopted and implemented.

On March 21, 2011, the district court (Judge Henderson) terminated all remaining use-of-force orders and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Summary Authors

Kristen Sagar (10/3/2008)

Samantha Kirby (11/30/2014)

Related Cases

Coleman v. Brown, Eastern District of California (1990)

Plata v. Newsom, Northern District of California (2001)

Ashker v. Brown, Northern District of California (2009)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5817130/parties/madrid-v-dept-of-corrections/


Judge(s)

Farris, Joseph Jerome (Washington)

Fletcher, William A. (California)

Henderson, Thelton Eugene (California)

Larson, James L. (California)

O'Scannlain, Diarmuid Fionntain (Oregon)

Tashima, Atsushi Wallace (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Bien, Michael W. (California)

Cassidy, Bernard J. (California)

Erickson, Arnold (California)

Fabela, Robert (California)

Judge(s)

Farris, Joseph Jerome (Washington)

Fletcher, William A. (California)

Henderson, Thelton Eugene (California)

Larson, James L. (California)

O'Scannlain, Diarmuid Fionntain (Oregon)

Tashima, Atsushi Wallace (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Bien, Michael W. (California)

Cassidy, Bernard J. (California)

Erickson, Arnold (California)

Fabela, Robert (California)

Fama, Steven (California)

Good, Sarah A. (California)

Kharazi, H. Ty (California)

Madrid, Alejandro (California)

McKay, Heather (California)

Scully, Joanne (California)

Shearer, J. Peter (California)

Solomon, Ellen (California)

Specter, Donald H. (California)

Steuer, David S. (California)

Vanyo, Bruce G. (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Bancroft, David P. (California)

Brinkman, Emily L. (California)

Caulfield, Richard H. (California)

Gifford, Paul D. (California)

Hallam, Jeffrey C. (California)

Jenkins, William (California)

Jorgenson, Michael W. (California)

Lee, Susan Duncan (California)

Lundgren, Daniel E. (California)

McKone, Michael M. (California)

Moss, Jennifer A. (California)

O'Linn, Mildred K. (California)

Siggins, Peter J. (California)

Slavin, Bruce Michael (California)

Starkey, Paul M. (California)

Turner, Sara E. (California)

Williamson, George H. (California)

Wilson, David James (California)

Other Attorney(s)

Adam, Gregg Mclean (California)

Albertine, Christine (California)

Altshuler, Fred H. (California)

Colson, Tamara Michelle (California)

Creighton, Susan Abouchar (California)

Lye, Linda (California)

Shartsis, Arthur J. (California)

Sheldon, Barbara Louise (California)

Stoughton, Jennifer Spencer (California)

Sybesma, Benjamin C. (California)

Yank, Ronald (California)

Expert/Monitor/Master

Hagar, John H. Jr. (California)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

3:90-cv-03094

Docket [PACER]

Aug. 29, 2011

Aug. 29, 2011

Docket
343

3:90-cv-03094

Order

Sept. 17, 1993

Sept. 17, 1993

Order/Opinion
537

3:90-cv-03094

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order

889 F.Supp. 1146

Jan. 10, 1995

Jan. 10, 1995

Order/Opinion
775

3:90-cv-03094

Order

940 F.Supp. 247

Aug. 23, 1996

Aug. 23, 1996

Order/Opinion

96-70640

96-70687

96-70659

Reported Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

103 F.3d 828

Dec. 24, 1996

Dec. 24, 1996

Order/Opinion

96-01519

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Wilson v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of California

Supreme Court of the United States

520 U.S. 1230, 117 S.Ct. 1823, 137 L.Ed.2d 1031

May 19, 1997

May 19, 1997

Order/Opinion

96-17277

97-16237

Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

150 F.3d 1030

July 2, 1998

July 2, 1998

Order/Opinion

96-17277

97-16237

Withdrawal of Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

179 F.3d 1252

July 7, 1999

July 7, 1999

Order/Opinion

96-17277

96-16237

Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

190 F.3d 990

Aug. 30, 1999

Aug. 30, 1999

Order/Opinion
1754

3:90-cv-03094

Special Master’s Final Report Re: Department of Corrections Post Powers Investigations and Employee Discipline

Madrid v. Woodford

June 24, 2004

June 24, 2004

Monitor/Expert/Receiver Report

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5817130/madrid-v-dept-of-corrections/

Last updated June 5, 2022, 3:01 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT No Process (dm, COURT STAFF) Modified on 10/31/1990 (Entered: 10/31/1990)

Oct. 26, 1990

Oct. 26, 1990

PACER

AFFIDAVIT of Alejandro Madrid for fp status (dm, COURT STAFF)

Oct. 26, 1990

Oct. 26, 1990

PACER

RECEIVED letter from Madrid, no date (dm, COURT STAFF)

Nov. 13, 1990

Nov. 13, 1990

PACER

RECEIVED letter dated 11/30/90 submitted by plaintiff Alejandro Madrid (dm, COURT STAFF)

Dec. 6, 1990

Dec. 6, 1990

PACER
3

ORDER by Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting affidavit [0-1] to proceed in forma pauperis. Clerk to issue summons via the US Marshall's Office. Plaintiff's claim against the CA Dept. of Corrections is dismissed with prejudice. Remaining claims are dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend. Clerk to mail copy of order by certified mail to plaintiff. Sergeant Boyll to prepare special report. (cc: all counsel) (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/07/1991)

March 4, 1991

March 4, 1991

PACER
2

SUPPLEMENT by plaintiff Alejandro Madrid on compensatory and punitive damages sought (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/07/1991)

March 5, 1991

March 5, 1991

PACER
4

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant T. Boyll on 3/13/91 (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/22/1991)

March 20, 1991

March 20, 1991

PACER
5

REQUEST by plaintiff Alejandro Madrid to proceed in forma pauperis and appointment of counsel (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/28/1991)

March 26, 1991

March 26, 1991

PACER
6

AMENDED COMPLAINT [1-1] by plaintiff Alejandro Madrid (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/28/1991)

March 26, 1991

March 26, 1991

PACER

RECEIVED letter dated 3/21/91 submitted by plaintiff Alejandro Madrid re explanation for time extension (dm, COURT STAFF)

March 26, 1991

March 26, 1991

PACER
7

ORDER by Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson extending time to amend complaint within 15 days after receipt of Special Report by Boyll. Court already granted ifp status in order of 3/4/91 (cc: all counsel) (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/01/1991)

March 28, 1991

March 28, 1991

PACER
8

ANSWER by defendant T. Boyll to complaint (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/01/1991)

March 29, 1991

March 29, 1991

PACER
9

ORDER by Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson dismissing some of the claims with leave to amend. Defendant to prepare a special report and Clerk to issue summons vis US Marshall. Copy of this order to be sent to Plaintiff and Sergeant Boyll by certified mail. (cc: all counsel) ( Date Entered 4/18/91) (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/18/1991)

April 16, 1991

April 16, 1991

PACER
10

MOTION by defendant T. Boyll for summary judgment with Notice set for 5/20/91 at 10:00 (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/18/1991)

April 16, 1991

April 16, 1991

PACER
11

SPECIAL REPORT and memorandum in support of motion to summary judgment by defendant T. Boyll (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/18/1991)

April 16, 1991

April 16, 1991

PACER
12

DECLARATION by Sergeant Boyll on behalf of defendant T. Boyll re motion for summary judgment [10-1] and Special Report [11-1] (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/18/1991)

April 16, 1991

April 16, 1991

PACER

RECEIVED order granting motion submitted by defendant T. Boyll re: [10-1] (dm, COURT STAFF)

April 16, 1991

April 16, 1991

PACER

RECEIVED letter dated 4/16/91 submitted by defendant T. Boyll re motion for summary judgment (dm, COURT STAFF)

April 16, 1991

April 16, 1991

PACER
13

REPLY by plaintiff Alejandro Madrid re answer answer [8-1] (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/19/1991)

April 18, 1991

April 18, 1991

PACER
14

MOTION by plaintiff Alejandro Madrid to compel imposition of court order (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/19/1991)

April 18, 1991

April 18, 1991

PACER
15

REMARK Identification of Officers from Madrid (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/19/1991)

April 18, 1991

April 18, 1991

PACER
16

REQUEST by plaintiff Alejandro Madrid for verification on amended complaint (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/19/1991)

April 18, 1991

April 18, 1991

PACER
17

MOTION by plaintiff Alejandro Madrid for appointment of counsel (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/19/1991)

April 18, 1991

April 18, 1991

PACER
18

PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiff Alejandro Madrid of documents [13-17] (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/19/1991)

April 18, 1991

April 18, 1991

PACER
19

RECEIPT to Sergeant Boyll of documents numbered [13-17] (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/19/1991)

April 18, 1991

April 18, 1991

PACER
20

DECLARATION by Sergeant Boyll on behalf of defendant T. Boyll re special report [11-1], re motion for summary judgment [10-1] (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/25/1991)

April 23, 1991

April 23, 1991

PACER
21

AFFIDAVIT of Alejandro Madrid for an extension of time respond to special report (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/06/1991)

May 2, 1991

May 2, 1991

PACER
22

MOTION by plaintiff Alejandro Madrid for trial (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/07/1991)

May 6, 1991

May 6, 1991

PACER
23

MEMORANDUM by plaintiff Alejandro Madrid in support of motion for trial [22-1] (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/07/1991)

May 6, 1991

May 6, 1991

PACER
24

DECLARATION by Alejandro Madrid on behalf of plaintiff Alejandro Madrid re motion for trial [22-1] (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/07/1991)

May 6, 1991

May 6, 1991

PACER

RECEIVED amended complaint submitted by plaintiff Alejandro Madrid (dm, COURT STAFF)

May 6, 1991

May 6, 1991

PACER
25

ORDER EXTENDING TIME by Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson plaintiff may file a response to defendant's special report within 15 days of the date of this order(cc: all counsel) () (cb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/13/1991)

May 8, 1991

May 8, 1991

PACER
26

ORDER by Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson referring plaintiff to federal pro bono project and staying proceedings until four weeks from the date of appointment of counsel (cc: all counsel) (cb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/13/1991)

May 9, 1991

May 9, 1991

PACER
27

MOTION by plaintiff Alejandro Madrid for temporary restraining order, and for preliminary injunction (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/24/1991)

May 23, 1991

May 23, 1991

PACER
28

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant Charles D. Marshall, defendant James Rowland on 5/10/91 (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/10/1991)

June 6, 1991

June 6, 1991

PACER
29

MOTION by defendant T. Boyll, defendant Charles D. Marshall, defendant James Rowland to dismiss with Notice set for 8/5/91 at 10:00 (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/20/1991)

June 20, 1991

June 20, 1991

PACER

RECEIVED order granting motion submitted by defendant T. Boyll, defendant Charles D. Marshall, defendant James Rowland re: [29-1] (dm, COURT STAFF)

June 20, 1991

June 20, 1991

PACER
30

MEMORANDUM by defendant T. Boyll, defendant Charles D. Marshall, defendant James Rowland in support of motion to dismiss [29-1] (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/24/1991)

June 20, 1991

June 20, 1991

PACER

RECEIVED letter dated 6/20/91 submitted by plaintiff Alejandro Madrid (dm, COURT STAFF)

June 24, 1991

June 24, 1991

PACER
31

RESPONSE by plaintiff Alejandro Madrid re motion to dismiss [29-1] (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/01/1991)

June 27, 1991

June 27, 1991

PACER
32

ORDER by Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson vacating hearing re motion to dismiss [29-1] (cc: all counsel) ( Date Entered 7/5/91) (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/05/1991)

July 3, 1991

July 3, 1991

PACER
33

ORDER by Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson appointing counsel from the Pro Bono Project and staying action in this case for 30 days. ( Date Entered: 8/15/91) (cc: all counsel) (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/15/1991)

Aug. 13, 1991

Aug. 13, 1991

PACER
34

LETTER OF EXPLAINATION dated 8/5/91 from Alejandro Madrid (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/20/1991)

Aug. 15, 1991

Aug. 15, 1991

PACER
35

NOTICE of appearance of counsel by plaintiff Alejandro Madrid (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/09/1991)

Sept. 6, 1991

Sept. 6, 1991

PACER
36

ORDER by Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson extending time to file opposition to motion to dismiss and hearing set for 11/18/91 at 10:00( Date Entered: 9/13/91) (cc: all counsel) (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/13/1991)

Sept. 12, 1991

Sept. 12, 1991

PACER
37

NOTICE by plaintiff Alejandro Madrid of related case(s) C91-1287 SBA (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/01/1991)

Sept. 30, 1991

Sept. 30, 1991

PACER
38

PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiff Alejandro Madrid of notice of related cases (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/01/1991)

Sept. 30, 1991

Sept. 30, 1991

PACER
39

MOTION by plaintiff Alejandro Madrid for leave to amend complaint with Notice set for 11/25/91 at 10:00 (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/31/1991)

Oct. 28, 1991

Oct. 28, 1991

PACER
40

MEMORANDUM by plaintiff Alejandro Madrid in support of motion for leave to amend complaint [39-1] (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/31/1991)

Oct. 28, 1991

Oct. 28, 1991

PACER

RECEIVED order granting motion submitted by plaintiff Alejandro Madrid re: [39-1] (dm, COURT STAFF)

Oct. 28, 1991

Oct. 28, 1991

PACER
41

STATEMENT of nonopposition and request for status conference by defendant T. Boyll (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/14/1991)

Nov. 12, 1991

Nov. 12, 1991

PACER
42

ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting motion for leave to amend complaint [39-1] ; Status conference 12/3/91 at 4:00 ( Date Entered: 11/22/91) (cc: all counsel) (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/22/1991)

Nov. 20, 1991

Nov. 20, 1991

PACER
43

AMENDED COMPLAINT [6-1] by plaintiff Alejandro Madrid (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/26/1991)

Nov. 21, 1991

Nov. 21, 1991

PACER
44

ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson ; Status conference cont'd to 12/10/91 3:00 ( Date Entered: 11/27/91) (cc: all counsel) (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/27/1991)

Nov. 26, 1991

Nov. 26, 1991

PACER
45

STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT by defendant T. Boyll, defendant Charles D. Marshall, defendant James Rowland (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/03/1991)

Dec. 2, 1991

Dec. 2, 1991

PACER
46

STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT by plaintiff Alejandro Madrid (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/04/1991)

Dec. 3, 1991

Dec. 3, 1991

PACER
47

STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson : Extending time for filing responsive pleading to amended complaint until 40 days after service of this stipulation (cc: all counsel) (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/06/1991)

Dec. 4, 1991

Dec. 4, 1991

PACER
48

MINUTES: ( C/R not reported) ; Status conference held ; Status conference cont'd to 3/9/92 10:00 for hearing on motion to dismiss to be filed (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/13/1991)

Dec. 11, 1991

Dec. 11, 1991

PACER
49

ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson that plaintiffs and defendants are granted blanket leave to take prisoners' depositions ( Date Entered: 12/17/91) (cc: all counsel) (dm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/17/1991)

Dec. 13, 1991

Dec. 13, 1991

PACER
50

MOTION by Party Lofofora Eva Contreras to be dismiss from class action suit (db, COURT STAFF) Modified on 04/20/1992 (Entered: 01/02/1992)

Jan. 2, 1992

Jan. 2, 1992

PACER
51

PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiff of summons (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/14/1992)

Jan. 10, 1992

Jan. 10, 1992

PACER
52

PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiff of summons (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/14/1992)

Jan. 10, 1992

Jan. 10, 1992

PACER

RECEIVED letter from Ruchell Magee re unlawfully convicted as set-up (ab, COURT STAFF)

Jan. 15, 1992

Jan. 15, 1992

PACER
53

ANSWER by defendant to complaint [43-1]; jury demand (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/16/1992)

Jan. 15, 1992

Jan. 15, 1992

PACER
54

REQUEST by defendant for judicial notice re exhibits in support of motions to dismiss (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/16/1992)

Jan. 15, 1992

Jan. 15, 1992

PACER
55

MOTION by defendant to dismiss with Notice set for 3/9/92 10 a.m. (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/16/1992)

Jan. 15, 1992

Jan. 15, 1992

PACER
56

MEMORANDUM by defendant in support of motion to dismiss [55-1] (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/16/1992)

Jan. 15, 1992

Jan. 15, 1992

PACER
57

MOTION by plaintiff to certify class action with Notice set for 3/9/92 10 a.m. (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/17/1992)

Jan. 16, 1992

Jan. 16, 1992

PACER
58

MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of motion to certify class action [57-1] (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/17/1992)

Jan. 16, 1992

Jan. 16, 1992

PACER
59

DECLARATION by Bruce Yanyo on behalf of plaintiff re motion to certify class action [57-1] (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/17/1992)

Jan. 16, 1992

Jan. 16, 1992

PACER
60

DECLARATION by Diane Doolittle on behalf of plaintiff re motion to certify class action [57-1] (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/17/1992)

Jan. 16, 1992

Jan. 16, 1992

PACER
61

PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiff of documents No. 57-60 (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/17/1992)

Jan. 16, 1992

Jan. 16, 1992

PACER

RECEIVED proposed order certifying class submitted by plaintiff re: [57-1] (ab, COURT STAFF)

Jan. 16, 1992

Jan. 16, 1992

PACER
62

ORDER: Case C91-1482 not related ( Date Entered: 1/21/92) (cc: all counsel) (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/21/1992)

Jan. 21, 1992

Jan. 21, 1992

PACER
63

MEMORANDUM by plaintiff Alejandro Madrid in support of motion for leave to amend complaint (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/21/1992)

Jan. 21, 1992

Jan. 21, 1992

PACER

RECEIVED Amended complaint submitted by plaintiff Alejandro Madrid re: [43-1] (ab, COURT STAFF)

Jan. 21, 1992

Jan. 21, 1992

PACER
64

ORDER: Case C91-2880 TEH related ( Date Entered: 2/5/92) (cc: all counsel) (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/05/1992)

Jan. 31, 1992

Jan. 31, 1992

PACER

RECEIVED stipulation and order for extension of briefing schedule on cross motions (ab, COURT STAFF)

Feb. 11, 1992

Feb. 11, 1992

PACER
65

STIPULATION and ORDER : Opposition briefs to cross-motions to dismiss shall be filed by 2/19/92; reply brief by 2/27/92; limit opposition to motion to dismiss to 25 pages or less; response to first request for production of documents and first set of interrogatories extended to 3/11/92 (cc: all counsel) (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/13/1992)

Feb. 12, 1992

Feb. 12, 1992

PACER
71

NOTICE by defendant of related case(s) (see document for list) (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/24/1992)

Feb. 19, 1992

Feb. 19, 1992

PACER
66

MEMORANDUM by defendant in opposition motion to certify class action [57-1] (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/21/1992)

Feb. 20, 1992

Feb. 20, 1992

PACER

RECEIVED proposed order denying motion for class certification (ab, COURT STAFF)

Feb. 20, 1992

Feb. 20, 1992

PACER
67

OPPOSITION by plaintiff to motion to dismiss [55-1] (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/21/1992)

Feb. 20, 1992

Feb. 20, 1992

PACER
68

DECLARATION by David Drummond on behalf of plaintiff re opposition [67-1] (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/21/1992)

Feb. 20, 1992

Feb. 20, 1992

PACER
69

PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiff of document No. 67-68 (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/21/1992)

Feb. 20, 1992

Feb. 20, 1992

PACER

RECEIVED exparte application and order for leave to file brief in excess of 25 pages submitted by plaintiff (ab, COURT STAFF)

Feb. 20, 1992

Feb. 20, 1992

PACER
70

ORDER plaintiffs' application to file brief not exceeding 36 pages GRANTED ( Date Entered: 2/24/92) (cc: all counsel) (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/24/1992)

Feb. 21, 1992

Feb. 21, 1992

PACER
72

OPPOSITION by plaintiff to motion to dismiss [55-1] (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/25/1992)

Feb. 24, 1992

Feb. 24, 1992

PACER
73

LETTER to TEH dated 2/21/92 from Jerome Matthews re none involvement to related case notice on case C90-712 SBA (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/27/1992)

Feb. 26, 1992

Feb. 26, 1992

PACER
74

NOTICE by plaintiff of related case(s) (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/27/1992)

Feb. 26, 1992

Feb. 26, 1992

PACER
75

REPLY memo by plaintiff re motion to certify class action [57-1] (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/28/1992)

Feb. 27, 1992

Feb. 27, 1992

PACER
76

DECLARATION by Jesse Calhoun in behalf of plaintiff in support of motion for counsel (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/02/1992)

Feb. 28, 1992

Feb. 28, 1992

PACER
77

STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT by defendant (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/02/1992)

Feb. 28, 1992

Feb. 28, 1992

PACER
79

REPLY memo by defendant re motion to dismiss [55-1] (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/02/1992)

Feb. 28, 1992

Feb. 28, 1992

PACER
78

NOTICE by plaintiff of association of attorney Steven Fama (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/02/1992)

Feb. 29, 1992

Feb. 29, 1992

PACER
80

DECLARATION by Lofofora Eva Contreras on behalf of plaintiff (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/10/1992)

March 9, 1992

March 9, 1992

PACER
81

RESPONSE by plaintiff re report [77-1] (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/10/1992)

March 9, 1992

March 9, 1992

PACER
82

MINUTES: ( C/R Carol Karen) that plaintiff's the motion to certify class action [57-1] is submitted, that defendant's the motion to dismiss [55-1] is submitted ; Status conference HELD (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/10/1992)

March 9, 1992

March 9, 1992

PACER
83

ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting plaintiff's motion to certify class action [57-1], denying defendant's motion to dismiss [55-1], granting and denying defendant's motion for more definite statement, denying defendant's motion to strike portions of plaintiff's complaint ( Date Entered: 3/16/92) (cc: all counsel) (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/16/1992)

March 13, 1992

March 13, 1992

PACER
84

ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson referring case to Mag. Judge Joan S. Brennan for pre-trial discovery ( Date Entered: 3/18/92) (cc: all counsel) (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/19/1992)

March 18, 1992

March 18, 1992

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Prison Conditions

Special Collection(s):

California's Prisoners' Rights Bar article

Solitary confinement

Key Dates

Filing Date: Oct. 26, 1990

Closing Date: 2011

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

prisoners at the Pelican Bay State Prison in Crescent City, California

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

Prison Law Office

ACLU of Northern California

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Crescent city, Del Norte), State

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

Equal Protection

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Monetary Relief

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Non-settlement Outcome

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Attorneys fees

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Amount Defendant Pays: Atty fees, Special Master

Order Duration: 1995 - 2011

Content of Injunction:

Monitor/Master

Monitoring

Issues

General:

Access to lawyers or judicial system

Assault/abuse by residents/inmates/students

Assault/abuse by staff

Classification / placement

Conditions of confinement

Excessive force

Failure to discipline

Failure to train

Personal injury

Sanitation / living conditions

Solitary confinement/Supermax (conditions or process)

Transportation

Affected Gender:

Male

Medical/Mental Health:

Medical care, general

Mental health care, general

Type of Facility:

Government-run