Filed Date: Dec. 22, 1981
Clearinghouse coding complete
On December 22, 1981, the plaintiffs, past and present inmates at the California Men's Colony (CMC), filed suit against prison officials in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs sought injunctive and monetary relief for violations of their civil rights. The plaintiffs specifically sought: to enjoin the defendants from allowing inmates to use toxic products in their cells; to require the defendants to provide safety equipment and proper ventilation throughout the CMC, particularly in the CMC Shoe Factory; to compel the defendants' compliance with health and safety regulations; to enjoin the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' legal correspondence; and to obtain monetary relief for injuries or death resulting from exposure to harmful materials.
On December 21, 1982, the District Court (Judge Edward Rafeedie) issued a preliminary injunction restricting the distribution of the harmful products in residential areas, and enjoining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' legal correspondence.
On July 2, 1984, the plaintiffs moved to dismiss the case so that they could bring a single trial of all the issues in state court. The District Court granted the motion without prejudice, and dissolved the preliminary injunction. By this time, the defendants had improved the CMC Shoe Factory by installing new vents, repairing equipment, posting warnings, and procuring organic masks for use by inmates.
On October 1, 1984, the plaintiffs filed a Section 1988 motion for attorney's fees. The District Court awarded the plaintiffs partial attorney's fees, including $26,275.00 for the preliminary injunction and $2,910.05 for the Section 1988 motion. The District Court rejected the plaintiffs' request for additional attorney's fees on their claim that the suit had been the cause of change in the CMC Shoe Factory. Plaintiffs appealed.
In 1986, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Judges Eugene A. Wright, Dorothy W. Nelson, and Alex Kozinski) affirmed. Writing for the court, Judge Nelson held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award attorney's fees under the ""catalyst-for-change"" theory on the basis of its determination that the issue was not ripe, where the plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief and damages were being pursued in state court. Harris v. McCarthy, 790 F.2d 753 (9th Cir. 1986).
The docket for this case is unavailable on PACER so we have no information as to subsequent proceedings or any other issue.
Summary Authors
Chris Sullivan (8/20/2005)
Nelson, Dorothy Wright (California)
Greenberg, Ronald M. (California)
Harrel, John (California)
Roeschke, Donald (California)
Last updated March 24, 2024, 3:09 a.m.
Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.State / Territory: California
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Dec. 22, 1981
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
past and present inmates at California Men's Colony
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
California Men's Colony, State
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Order Duration: 1981 - 1986
Issues
General/Misc.:
Sanitation / living conditions
Medical/Mental Health Care: