Case: Loya v. Board of County Commissioners

4:91-cv-00216 | U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho

Filed Date: June 3, 1991

Closed Date: 1993

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On June 3, 1991, inmates of the Bannock County Jail in Pocatello, Idaho, representing all present and future inmates, filed a class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, against jail and county officials, alleging that the conditions at the jail violated the First, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The inmates were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union. The inmates moved for partial summary judgment on the issues of over…

On June 3, 1991, inmates of the Bannock County Jail in Pocatello, Idaho, representing all present and future inmates, filed a class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, against jail and county officials, alleging that the conditions at the jail violated the First, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The inmates were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union. The inmates moved for partial summary judgment on the issues of overcrowding, inadequate staffing, inadequate recreation, inadequate lighting, and inadequate plumbing. On April 15, 1992, the court (Magistrate Judge Mikel H. Williams) certified the class. On May 4, 1992, the court (Magistrate Williams) found that the jail was unconstitutionally overcrowded, and that the lighting and plumbing was unconstitutionally inadequate. Loya v. The Board of County Comm. Of Bannock County, Idaho, No. CV91-216-E-MHW, 1992 WL 176131 (D. Idaho May 4, 1992). The court ordered the defendants to place a maximum population cap on the jail of 40 prisoners, except in emergency situations where an additional 5 prisoners would be allowed for no more than 72 hours. The court also ordered the defendants to obtain a plumbing and electrical report within 30 days and to repair the deficiencies within a short time following the report. Because of the order to decrease the jail population, the court did not determine the constitutionality of the staffing and recreation claims, but rather ordered the defendants to report to the court within 60 days of the decrease in population, whether staffing and recreation facilities would be adequate after the decrease. On December 18, 1992, the court (Magistrate Williams) granted the inmates' motion for additional relief. The court ordered the defendants to complete the hiring process for new staff by March 1, 1993, to establish an indoor recreation area, and to offer all inmates indoor or outdoor recreation for at least one hour per day, six days per week. On June 24, 1993, the court (Magistrate Williams) entered a stipulated order of dismissal of plaintiff's claims with prejudice, subject to the terms of a consent decree (which unfortunately we do not have).

Summary Authors

Jaclyn Adams (3/17/2006)

People


Judge(s)

Williams, Mikel H. (Idaho)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Pevar, Stephen L. (Colorado)

Stanzak, Joseph S. (Idaho)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Sasser, David (Idaho)

Judge(s)

Williams, Mikel H. (Idaho)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Pevar, Stephen L. (Colorado)

Stanzak, Joseph S. (Idaho)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Sasser, David (Idaho)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket (PACER)

June 24, 1993 Docket
37

Opinion & Order

1992 WL 176131, 1992 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 11242

May 4, 1992 Order/Opinion

Docket

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

ECF Number Description Date Link
1

COMPLAINT - Summons(es) issued/consent sent (mn) (Entered: 06/11/1991)

June 3, 1991
2

ORDER OF REFERENCE by Honorable Edward J. Lodge : Case referred to Magistrate Mikel H. Williams for all pretrial matters. (cc: all counsel) (mn) (Entered: 06/17/1991)

June 13, 1991
3

MOTION by plaintiff Lance Loya, plaintiff Casey Cuttler for entry of order appointing impartial expert witnesses (mn) (Entered: 07/26/1991)

July 25, 1991
4

BRIEF by plaintiff Lance Loya, plaintiff Casey Cuttler in support re: motion for entry of order appointing impartial expert witnesses [3-1] (mn) (Entered: 07/26/1991)

July 25, 1991
5

MOTION by plaintiff Lance Loya, plaintiff Casey Cuttler to certify class action (mn) (Entered: 07/26/1991)

July 25, 1991
6

BRIEF by plaintiff Lance Loya, plaintiff Casey Cuttler in support re: motion to certify class action [5-1] (mn) (Entered: 07/26/1991)

July 25, 1991
7

MOTION by defendant Bannock Cty Commr, defendant William Lynn to extend time to respond to complaint referred to Magistrate Mikel H. Williams (mn) (Entered: 08/07/1991)

Aug. 6, 1991
8

NOTICE by defendant Bannock Cty Commr, defendant William Lynn of non-objection tomotion for class certification (mn) (Entered: 08/07/1991)

Aug. 6, 1991
9

ORDER by Magistrate Mikel H. Williams granting referral motion to extend time to respond to complaint and respond to plfs' motion for appointment of expert witnesss to 8/20/91 referred to Magistrate Mikel H. Williams [7-1] (cc: all counsel) (mn) (Entered: 08/12/1991)

Aug. 9, 1991
10

ANSWER by defendant Bannock Cty Commr, defendant William Lynn; jury demand (mn) (Entered: 08/21/1991)

Aug. 20, 1991
11

MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION by defendant Bannock Cty Commr, defendant William Lynn to motion for entry of order appointing impartial expert witnesses [3-1] (mn) (Entered: 08/21/1991)

Aug. 20, 1991
12

MOTION by plaintiff Lance Loya, plaintiff Casey Cuttler for order to show cause and plfs respectfully request that the documents previously filed re te appointment of expert witnesses be incorporated herein by reference to this motion (mn) (Entered: 09/04/1991)

Sept. 3, 1991
13

REPLY by plaintiff Lance Loya, plaintiff Casey Cuttler to response to motion for entry of order appointing impartial expert witnesses [3-1] (mn) (Entered: 09/04/1991)

Sept. 3, 1991
14

NOTICE OF HEARING setting hearing on motion for order to show cause and plfs respectfully request that the documents previously filed re te appointment of expert witnesses be incorporated herein by reference to this motion [12-1] 10:00 9/10/91 before (MHW) via telephone (cc: all counsel) (mn) (Entered: 09/09/1991)

Sept. 5, 1991
16

MINUTES OF HEAR ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - (EJL)(see status order #15) (mn) (Entered: 09/13/1991)

Sept. 10, 1991
15

STATUS CONFERENCE ORDER by Magistrate Mikel H. Williams ; Discovery ddl 1/10/92 ; Dispositive Motion ddl 2/11/92 ; Jury Trial (5 days) 6/15/92 1:30 before Judge Lodge in Pocatello, ID ; OSC hearing of 9/10/91 continued to 9/25/91 3:30 via telephone ; Case Mgmt ddl-plff shall submit a stipulated draft order on the motion for class certification to the Court by 9/20/91 (cc: all counsel) (mn) (Entered: 09/13/1991)

Sept. 11, 1991
17

MINUTES OF HEAR ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - taking under advisement on the motion for order to show cause and plfs respectfully request that the documents previously filed re te appointment of expert witnesses be incorporated herein by reference to this motion and parties to submit order for Court to sign re; expert witness [12-1] (MHW) (mn) (Entered: 09/26/1991)

Sept. 25, 1991
18

STIPULATION that the deposition of plf Lance Loya be taken at the ISCI on 12/5/91 and/or 12/6/91 (mn) (Entered: 11/15/1991)

Nov. 13, 1991
19

ORDER by Magistrate Mikel H. Williams granting stipulation that the deposition of plf Lance Loya be taken at the ISCI on 12/5/91 at 2:00 p.m. and/or 12/6/91 at 10:00a.m. [18-1] (cc: all counsel) (mn)

Nov. 19, 1991
20

STIPULATED MOTION by plaintiff Lance Loya, plaintiff Casey Cuttler to vacate status conference and pending mo order (mn) (Entered: 11/26/1991)

Nov. 25, 1991
21

AMENDED STATUS CONFERENCE ORDER by Magistrate Mikel H. Williams ; Discovery ddl 2/24/92 ; Dispositive Motion ddl 2/24/92 (cc: all counsel) (jb) (Entered: 12/03/1991)

Dec. 2, 1991

MEMO TO FILE by Kathleen Butterfield - after telephone status conference re Heartfelt v. Blaine County, civ 91-004, parties discussed issues in case #91-216J and desire to file cross motions for S. J. and that a trial would probably not be necessary; plf will submit his motion for S. J. by 3/1/92 and than dft will file his-request hearing in April of 1992 on cross motions; parties will stipulate to remaining issues by the end of January and will submit stipulated motion to vacate the current trial date (mn) (Entered: 12/11/1991)

Dec. 4, 1991
22

STIPULATION that Raymond Leidig, M. D. will be appointed by the Court as an expert witness; that parties agree to equally split all costs related to Dr. Leidig's services; each has agreed to be responsible for all costs related to other experts hired previously and to defer retention of any other experts. See document for further details. (gl) (Entered: 12/09/1991)

Dec. 6, 1991
23

ORDER by Magistrate Mikel H. Williams granting stipulation that Raymond Leidig, M. D. will be appointed by the Court as an expert witness; that parties agree to equally split all costs related to Dr. Leidig's services; each has agreed to be responsible for all costs related to other experts hired previously and to defer retention of any other experts. See document for further details. [22-1] (cc: all counsel) (mn) (Entered: 12/11/1991)

Dec. 10, 1991
24

CONSENT TO PROCEED BEFORE MAGISTRATE AND ORDER OF REFERENCE by Honorable Edward J. Lodge assigning case to Magistrate Mikel H. Williams (cc: all counsel) (mn)

Dec. 30, 1991
25

RETURN OF SERVICE/PROCESS executed upon defendant Bannock Cty Commr on 6/11/91 (gl) (Entered: 12/31/1991)

Dec. 30, 1991
26

RETURN OF SERVICE/PROCESS executed upon defendant William Lynn on 6/11/91 (gl) (Entered: 12/31/1991)

Dec. 30, 1991
27

STIPULATION to amend status conference order (mn) (Entered: 02/24/1992)

Feb. 20, 1992
28

MOTION by plaintiff for summary judgment (gl) (Entered: 02/27/1992)

Feb. 25, 1992

LODGED: brief in support re: motion for summary judgment [28-1] (brief is over 20 pages in length - counsel will submit a motion and proposed order to file brief) (gl) (Entered: 02/27/1992)

Feb. 25, 1992
29

ORDER by Magistrate Mikel H. Williams re [15-1] ; Teleconf scheduled 4/13/92 at 10:00am ; Discovery ddl vacated ; Motion Filing ddl vacated ; Jury trial set 6/15/92 is vacated ; OSC hearing heard on 9/25/91 ; Case Mgmt ddl vacated; defendants shall submit response with briefs to plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment by 3/16/92; plaintiffs shall submit their reply brief on 3/31/92; Parties have 90 days from the date the Court rules on plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment to pursue settlement; if matter is unresolved by that date a status conference will be conducted for Court to determine status of case and enter such orders as the Court deems appropriate (cc: all counsel) (gl) (Entered: 03/04/1992)

Feb. 28, 1992

LODGED: Deposition of Cynthia Halm (gl) (Entered: 03/06/1992)

March 4, 1992

LODGED: Deposition of William Lynn (gl) (Entered: 03/06/1992)

March 4, 1992
30

MOTION by plaintiff to exceed briefing page limit and file over-length brief (gl) (Entered: 03/09/1992)

March 6, 1992
31

REPLY by defendant Bannock Cty Commr, defendant William Lynn to response to motion for summary judgment [28-1] (mn) (Entered: 03/17/1992)

March 16, 1992
32

AFFIDAVIT of Alfred I. Murphy regarding motion reply [31-1] (mn) (Entered: 03/17/1992)

March 16, 1992
33

REPLY BRIEF by plaintiff to motion for summary judgment [28-1] (gl) (Entered: 04/01/1992)

March 30, 1992
30

ORDER by Magistrate Mikel H. Williams granting motion to exceed briefing page limit and file over-length brief [30-1] (cc: all counsel) (gl)

April 13, 1992
34

BRIEF by plaintiff in support re: motion for summary judgment [28-1] (gl)

April 13, 1992
35

MINUTES OF HEARING ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT - taking under advisement on 4/13/92 the motion for summary judgment [28-1] MHW (gl) (Entered: 04/15/1992)

April 13, 1992
36

ORDER by Magistrate Mikel H. Williams granting motion to certify class action [5-1] (cc: all counsel) (gl) (Entered: 04/17/1992)

April 15, 1992
37

ORDER by Magistrate Mikel H. Williams granting motion for summary judgment [28-1]; That defendants are allowed 60 days from date of this order to reduce the inmate population in Bannock County jail to a maximum of 40 inmates; after this date no more than 40 inmates can be housed in that jail at any time; with one exception: in emergency situations an additional five prisoners will be allowed for no more than 72 hours. Defendants shall report to this Court within 30 days from the date of this Order on the method to be used to accomplish this reduction. Defendants have 30 days to obtain electrical and pllumbing inspections and to provide a written report to the Court detailing repairs. Defendants be allowed 60 days from and after the date the inmate population is reduced to 40 inmates to conduct their operations at present staffing levels. During this 60 day period, the jail staff will be prohibited from conducting any duties outside of and unrelated to the operation of the jail; thereby allowing defendants 60 days to determine if the existing staff can perform all functions essential to the proper management of the Bannock County jail; at the end of the 60 days the defendants will provide a report to the Court regarding staffing needs. That defendants be allowed 60 days from the date upon which the inmate population is reduced to 40 inmates within which to continue providing recreational facilities, during that time defendants will evaluate the adequacy of such services in light of the reduced inmate population, at the end of the 60 day period, defendants will provide a report to the Court and counsel regarding their findings regarding improvements necessary to provide exercise and recreational opportunities that will protect the inmates' health and welfare, at that time the Court will issue additional orders it deems appropriate with regard to recreational facilities. (cc: all counsel) (gl) (Entered: 05/05/1992)

May 4, 1992
38

COMPLIANCE PROPOSAL by defendant Bannock Cty Commr, defendant William Lynn in support of Order of this Court of 5/4/92 (gl) (Entered: 06/11/1992)

June 5, 1992
39

STIPULATION regarding dfts' use of downstairs holding cells (mn) (Entered: 07/13/1992)

July 9, 1992
40

ORDER by Magistrate Mikel H. Williams granting stipulation regarding dfts' use of downstairs holding cells subject to the conditions listed in the order [39-1] (cc: all counsel) (gl)

July 13, 1992
41

STATUS REPORT by dft (wm) (Entered: 11/09/1992)

Nov. 5, 1992
42

MOTION by plaintiff for additional relief in addition to relief granted in 5/4/92 order (37-1) (jl)

Nov. 16, 1992
43

RESPONSE by dft to plas motion for additional relief [42-1] (wm) (Entered: 12/01/1992)

Nov. 30, 1992
44

SUPPLEMENTAL STATUS REPORT AND STIPULATED RESOLUTION re motion for additional relief [42-1] (gl) (Entered: 12/17/1992)

Dec. 16, 1992
45

ORDER by Magistrate Mikel H. Williams granting motion for additional relief [42-1] that defendants have to 3/1/93 to complete the hiring process and have additional personnel in-service (see document); that by 12/31/92 defendants will remove beds from cell no. 9 and establish indoor recreation area; all inmates will be offered access to indoor or outdoor recreation for a minimum of one hour a day at least 6 days a week; that defendants may separate the four inmates presently housed in cell no. 9 and house them in cell no's 1-8, still allowing defendants to house a total of 40 inmates in the second floor housing area of the existing Bannock County Jail(cc: all counsel) (gl) (Entered: 12/23/1992)

Dec. 18, 1992
46

AMENDED SUPPLEMENTAL STATUS REPORT by pla and dft and stipulated resolution of plas motion for additional relief (wm) (Entered: 12/31/1992)

Dec. 18, 1992
47

STIPULATION re: notice to inmates of proposed consent decree, order and judgment (with attached notice to inmates signed by Magistrate Williams) (jl) (Entered: 03/31/1993)

March 30, 1993
49

STIPULATION for dismissal w/prejudice all plas' claims, subject to terms of consent decree order and judgment (jl)

June 24, 1993
50

CONSENT DECREE, ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL W/PREJUDICE by Magistrate Mikel H. Williams granting stipulation for dismissal w/prejudice all plas' claims, subject to terms of consent decree order and judgment dismissing case (cc: all counsel) (jl) (Entered: 06/29/1993)

June 24, 1993

State / Territory: Idaho

Case Type(s):

Jail Conditions

Key Dates

Filing Date: June 3, 1991

Closing Date: 1993

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

inmates of the Bannock County Jail in Pocatello, Idaho, representing all present and future inmates

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: Unknown

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Bannock County Commission (Bannock), County

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Due Process

Freedom of speech/association

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 1992 - 0

Issues

General:

Recreation / Exercise

Sanitation / living conditions

Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)

Crowding:

Crowding / caseload

Pre-PLRA Population Cap

Type of Facility:

Government-run