Filed Date: Oct. 18, 2001
Closed Date: 2014
Clearinghouse coding complete
On October 18, 2001, pretrial detainees represented by attorney Barry Litt initiated a class action suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, challenging the conditions of confinement at the Orange County Jail (the "Jail"). Plaintiffs alleged that they were detained for unreasonable periods of time following the order for their release, denied rights under Stewart v. Gates (e.g., holding cell seats, outdoor exercise, dayroom and phone access), and denied reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The District Court (Judge Gary L. Taylor) certified two classes, one for equitable relief and one for injunctive relief, on October 15, 2003. The injunctive relief class was later decertified on March 1, 2004. In response to various motions to dismiss, Plaintiffs filed several amended complaints, culminating in the final operative pleading, the Fifth Amended Complaint. The claims that survived dismissal involved meals, overcrowded holding cells, outdoor exercise, dayroom access, religious services, and access for people with disabilities.
On March 10, 2004, Judge Taylor sua sponte consolidated this action with Stewart v. Gates, 450 F.Supp. 583 (C.D.Cal. 1978), for the December 2004 trial. The Stewart case involved an injunction against the Jail that had been in effect since the mid-1970s.
One plaintiff's personal injury claim was bifurcated from the main case and settled in December 2005.
On April 27, 2005, Judge Taylor entered judgment for the defendants on all claims. Plaintiffs appealed.
On March 24, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed much of the District Court's decision modifying and terminating portions of prior injunctive decrees. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision regarding the plaintiffs' right-to-worship, cruel and unusual punishment, and ADA claims. The appellate ruling stated that the religious services portion of the Stewart injunction was both narrowly drawn and needed to protect the freedom of these pretrial detainees to worship, so it should not have been modified by the District Court. The Ninth Circuit also held that providing only ninety minutes per week (about thirteen minutes per day) of out-of-cell exercise for pretrial prisoners in administrative segregation did not meet constitutional standards. Likewise, failure to provide accommodations for mobility- and dexterity-impaired pretrial prisoners did not comply with ADA requirements. The defendants' failure to remove certain physical barriers or make accommodations for disabled prisoners to navigate these barriers, as well as the Jail's inadequate accommodations of disabled prisoners' educational, recreational, and vocational programming needs, constituted ADA non-compliance. The Ninth Circuit also restored one disabled plaintiff's claims for damages based upon alleged mental and emotional harms, finding that these harms allegedly resulted from the ADA violations and should not have been dismissed by the District Court. Pierce v. County of Orange, 519 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2008). This order was amended on May 15, 2008 as part of the denial of rehearing en banc. Pierce v. County of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2008).
The case was remanded to the District Court for further fact-finding on the state of physical barriers to adequate access to bathrooms, showers, exercise areas, dayrooms, dining rooms, cells and all other areas to which disabled persons should have access, and to order remedial remedies as required.
On January 7, 2011, after another six-day bench trial, the District Court (Judge Audrey B. Collins) confirmed the ADA sub-class as pretrial detainees with either a mobility or dexterity impairment, and made detailed findings of fact as to the conditions in the various facilities. Judge Collins found ADA violations including physical barriers for disabled inmates, disparate access to services, recreation and programming, and noncompliant bathroom, shower, and living facilities. Judge Collins ordered the defendants to draft a comprehensive plan to correct these deficiencies. Pierce v. County of Orange, 761 F. Supp. 2d 915 (C.D. Cal. 2011).
On February 18, 2011, defendants submitted a Proposed Plan for addressing the issues presented in the January 7 ruling. After plaintiffs submitted their reply on March 11, 2011, the Proposed Plan was amended.
On June 28, 2011, the District Court entered judgment for the plaintiffs and accepted the defendant's final proposed plan for addressing the physical barriers identified in the factual findings and ensuring that disabled detainees are provided with equal access to programs, services, and activities as discussed therein. The Court's order also called for the appointment of a Monitor. Over the next year, the parties litigated attorneys' fees and issues regarding the Jail's compliance with the judgment.
On February 1, 2012, Judge Collins noted that while defendants had made substantial progress on the required physical modifications during the first six months following the Court's Order, they had not complied with several significant parts of the Order, including the housing of class members and the implementing of programmatic changes, as indicated in the Monitor's January 2012 report. The parties then resolved many of these issues. After receiving another quarterly report, on August 27, 2012, Judge Collins again noted that there were still key areas of noncompliance with the Order, particularly with regard to the programmatic aspects such as outdoor recreation.
On March 8, 2012, Judge Collins ordered defendants to pay approximately $2.99 million in attorneys' fees and $225,147.52 in litigation expenses. Pierce v. Cnty. of Orange, 905 F. Supp. 2d 1017 (C.D. Cal. 2012).
The injunction was due to expire on June 27, 2013. On June 3, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion to stay the termination of the injunction and extend injunctive relief for two more years. Plaintiffs claimed that while defendants had made limited progress, the Jail remained largely out of compliance with the Court's Order in key respects, particularly with regard to 1) the classification and booking of class members, 2) the Department's policies and procedures, and 3) physical modifications.
Defendants filed an opposition to plaintiffs' motion, but the parties agreed that briefing should not proceed further until the Monitor issued his Eighth Quarterly Report in July 2013. On August 12, 2013, defendants filed a motion to terminate the injunction under the Prison Litigation Reform Act on the grounds that there were no current and ongoing violations of prisoners' federal rights.
Briefing on the cross-motions to extend and terminate injunctive relief was delayed as a result of a discovery issue regarding inmate medical records and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. On February 10, 2014, Judge Collins denied plaintiffs' motion to extend injunctive relief and granted defendant's motion to terminate the injunction. Judge Collins held that none of the three areas in which plaintiffs sought to extend the injunction presented current or ongoing violations of prisoners' federal rights.
On August 6, 2014, the District Court (Chief Judge George H. King) ordered that, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, defendant would pay plaintiffs' attorneys $115,000 to fully resolve all remaining fees and costs.
Summary Authors
Timothy Shoffner (6/29/2012)
Samantha Kirby (11/18/2014)
Stewart v. Gates, Central District of California (1975)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5804444/parties/fred-pierce-v-county-of-orange-et/
Bybee, Jay S. (Nevada)
Collins, Audrey B. (California)
Fletcher, Betty Binns (Washington)
Baltodano, Hernaldo J. (California)
Beach, Paul B (California)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5804444/fred-pierce-v-county-of-orange-et/
Last updated April 6, 2025, 10:51 a.m.
State / Territory: California
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Oct. 18, 2001
Closing Date: 2014
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
All pre-trial detainees held in Orange County jails after October 21, 2001, who were denied various rights under Stewart v. Gates and the ADA.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
Orange County (Orange), County
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Amount Defendant Pays: Over $3m in attorneys fee
Order Duration: 2011 - 2014
Issues
General/Misc.:
Access to public accommodations - governmental
Food service / nutrition / hydration
Disability and Disability Rights:
Discrimination Basis:
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions: