Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 1 of 70

1

2

PORTER

I

SCOTT

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

4

Carl L. Fessenden, SBN 161494
John R. Whitefleet, SBN 213301
Ashley M. Wisniewski, SBN 264601
Ryan P. O'Connor, SBN 304815

5

350 University Ave., Suite 200
Sacramento, California 95825

6

Attorneys for Defendants

3

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

9
10
11
12

DERRIL HEDRICK, DALE ROBINSON,
KATHY LINDSEY, MARTIN C.
CANADA, DARRY TYRONE PARKER,
individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,

13

Plaintiffs,
V.

17
18
19

CASE NO. 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB

DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE

DATE:
TIME:
CTR.VI:

February 2, 2017
10:00 a.m.
8

JAMES GRANT, as Sheriff of YUBA
COUNTY; LIEUTENANT FRED J. ASBY,
as Yuba County Jailer; JAMES PHARRIS,
ROY LANDERMAN, DOUG WALTZ,
HAROLD J. "SAM" SPERBEK, JAMES
MARTIN, as Members of the Yuba County
Board of Supervisors,

20
Defendants.
21

22
23
24

25
26
27

28
{01637244 DOCX}

DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 2 of 70
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1
2

I.

INTRODUCTION

3

II.

BACKGROUND AND HISTORY ..................................................................................... 2

4

A.
B.
C.

5
6
7

......................................................................................................... 1

Lawsuit and Consent Decree ................................................................................ 2
History since Consent Decree and up to Motion to Terminate .............................. 3
Meet and Confer .................................................................................................... 5

III.

THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT IS THE THRESHOLD LEGAL
STANDARD THAT APPLIES TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION ........................................... 5

IV.

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE IT EXCEEDS THE
TERMS OF THE CONSENT DECREE AND PLAINTIFFS DID NOT EXHAUST
THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES UNDER THE PLRA ...................................... 7

8
9
10
11

A.
B.

12
0
0
NV\
f- (!) N
E- .t:
00 - \0
::l tr, 00 0
Q<ZlO\..;-t-

<!'.

°' r--:

r.i.l ·,::
E~ (!)

°' °'

~

"

0

-

rt)

13
V.

DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE ..................................................................................... 10

VI.

DEFENDANTS ARE NOT DELIBERATELY INDIFFERENT TO THE
RIGHTS OF INMATES .................................................................................................... 12

14

-~u~~
~ oB~~ 15
~~E

....

...n<:
w.l <i:

o0..:5·- e~E-u.. 16
0
tr,
M

<Zl

Plaintiffs Did Not Exhaust Administrative Remedies ............................................. 8
Plaintiffs Cannot Establish a Constitutional Violation Warranting
Prospective Relief ................................................................................................... 9

A.
B.

17
18
19
20

C.

21
22
23
24
25
D.
26
27

Training of Staff .................................................................................................... 12
Third Party Inspections of Yuba County Jail ...................................................... 15
1.
ICE Inspections ......................................................................................... 15
2.
Environmental Health Evaluation ............................................................. 20
3.
Biannual Inspections by BSCC ................................................................. 22
4.
Grand Jury Reports .................................................................................... 24
Policies ................................................................................................................. 27
1.
Intake Process ............................................................................................ 27
2.
Face-to-face assessment of those using mental health .............................. 28
3.
Crisis evaluation, emergency services, and suicide assessment.. .............. 28
4.
Safety Cells ............................................................................................... 28
5.
Medical Isolation and assignment to administrative segregation .............. 29
6.
Prescription medication policies ............................................................... 29
7.
Alcohol/Drug policies, including withdrawal ........................................... 30
8.
Emergency care ......................................................................................... 30
Inmate complaints are Insufficient.. ...................................................................... 30

Ill
Ill

28
{01637244.DOCX}

1

DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 3 of 70

1
2

VII.

DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC ISSUES RAISED BY PLAINTIFFS ...... 31
A.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0
0

N v-.

'°

f- .~
&J f::lv-.ooO

0

~

{/l

°'

'St I'-

•
M
.;-<c,,;r..:

13
14

-~u~~ 15
.8;:: ;::

~ 0

{.L.l ·-

C

0\ 0\

f-~O ....
~~a ....J ><::

oo..;5islf--,"'·- e w -< 16
0
V)

{/l

17

M

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

B.

27
28
{01637244.DOCX}

Medical and Mental Health Issues ........................................................................ 31
1.
Medical and Mental Health Intake Requirements (Motion pp. 9:22 15: 16) ....................................................................................................... 31
a.
Plaintiffs' Claims ........................................................................... 31
b.
Defendants' Response ................................................................... 32
2.
Suicide Prevention and Emergency Response provisions
(Mot pp. 15: 17 - 25:14) ............................................................................ 35
a.
Plaintiffs' claims ........................................................................... 3 5
1)
Claim No. 1 - Suicide Hazards ......................................... 35
2)
Claim 2 - Risk of suicide by placing plaintiffs
with mental illnesses in administrative segregation .......... 36
3)
Claim 3 -Placing Prisoners in Isolation Cells .................. 36
b.
Defendants' Response ................................................................... 3 7
1)
Claim 1 - Suicide Hazards ................................................ 3 8
2)
Claim 2 regarding administrative segregation .................. 40
3)
Claim 3 regarding use of safety cells ................................ 43
3.
Out-Patient Medical and Mental Health .................................................... 45
a.
Plaintiffs' Claims ........................................................................... 45
1)
Claim No. 1 - Medication Practices .................................. 45
2)
Claim 2 - Alcohol and Drug Withdrawal ......................... 46
3)
Claim 3 - Access to Psychosocial Treatment ................... 46
4)
Claim 4 - Regular Delays and Outright Denials
the Provision Medical Care ............................................. 46
5)
Claim 5 - Failure to Provide Adequate
Confidentiality and Language Interpretation ................... 46
b.
Defendants' Response ................................................................... 4 7
1)
Claim 1- Medication practices .......................................... 4 7
2)
Claim 2 - Alcohol and Drug Withdrawal ......................... 49
3)
Claim 3 - Access to psychosocial treatment.. ................... 51
4)
Claim 4-Delay or denial of medical care ........................ 52
5)
Claim 5 - Failure to Provide Adequate
Confidentiality and Language interpretation for
Medical and Mental Health Treatment.. ............................ 53
4.
Mental Health and Medical Understaffing ................................................ 55
a.
Plaintiffs' Claims ........................................................................... 55
b.
Defendants' Response ................................................................... 5 5
5.
In-Patient Mental Health Care and Addressing Plaintiffs with
Serious Mental Illness Who Require Psychiatric Hospitalization ............ 58
a.
Plaintiffs' Claims ........................................................................... 58
b.
Defendants' Response ................................................................... 59
Recreation and Exercise ........................................................................................ 60
1.
Offers of Exercise ...................................................................................... 60
a.
Plaintiffs' Claims ........................................................................... 60
b.
Defendants' Response ................................................................... 60
11

DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 4 of 70
2.

C.

Segregation Policies .................................................................................. 62
a.
Plaintiffs' Claims ........................................................................... 62
b.
Defendants' Response ................................................................... 62

ICE and Pre-Trial Detainees ................................................................................. 63
1.
Plaintiffs' Claims ....................................................................................... 63
2.
Defendants' Response ............................................................................... 63

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 63

(01637244.DOCX}

111

DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 5 of 70
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

1
2

CASES

3

Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2010) ...................................................... 6

4
5

Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001) .......................................................................................... 8

6

Btesh v. City of Maitland, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83464 (M.D. Fla. July 28, 2011) ................. 25

7

Butler v. Adams, 397 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 9

8

Casey v. Lewis, 4 F.3d 1516 (9th Cir. 1993) .................................................................................. 6

9

tr"l

~

'°

f- -~
f-;:::ltr)Q00

QCl'.lO\-stt'"

-

M

City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796 (1986) .................................................................... 11

11

City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808 (1985) ................................................................. 11

Farmerv. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825(1994) ....................................................................................... 10

14

Fro_st v. Symington, 197 F.3d 348 (9th Cir. 1999) .......................................................................... 6

-~u~~
0:::.02:£:£ 15

= °' °'

ci:::

d)

µ..l

< 16

Gilmore v. California, 220 F.3d at 999 n. 15 (9th Cir. 2000) ........................................................ 7

17

Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 6

18

Hallet v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732 (9th Cir. 2002) ................................................................... 7, 8, 10

o..:§~f-r....
oCl'.l
tr)
M

Giba v. Cook, 232 F. Supp. 2d l 171(D. Or. 2002) ....................................................................... 40

....

~ .....l ~

0 .:: ...

Clouthier v. County of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232(9th Cir. 2010) ........................................... 11

13

~~-:i:O-:C--:

µ.J
·-d J
f-~

Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2016) ................................................ 11

10

12
0
0
N

Bennett v. King, 293 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2002) ............................................................................ 9

19
20

Henderson v. City and County of San Francisco,
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87262 (N.D. Cal. 2006) .............................................................. 12

21

Johnson v. Meltzer, 134 F.3d 1393 (9th Cir. 1998) ..................................................................... 11

22

Jones v. Johnson, 781 F.2d 769 (9th Cir. 1986) ............................................................................ 10

23

Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) ............................................................................................. 9

24

McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140 (1992) .................................................................................. 8

25

McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2002) ....................................................................... 8

26

Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) .................................................................... 11

27

Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78 (1976) ......................................................................................... 40

28

Morton v. Hall, 599 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 8, 9
{01637244 DOCX}

lV

DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 6 of 70

1

Oluwa v. Gomez, 133 F.3d 1237 (9th Cir. 1998) ........................................................................... 7

2

Pierce v. County of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2008) ......................................................... 11

3

Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516(2002) ......................................................................................... 3, 8

4

Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2010) ..................................................................... 8

5

Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F .2d 240 (9th Cir. 1989) ............................................................................. 10

6

Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2004) ........................................................................ 10

7

Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 1996) ............................................................................. 11

8

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 96 L. Ed. 2d 64, 107 S. Ct. 2254 ( 1994) ........................................ 6

9

Ulrich v. City & County of San Francisco, 308 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 2002) .................................... 11

10

Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2006) ................................................................... 8

11

Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) ....................................................................................... 8, 9

12
0
0
N

II)

'°

f....; .~ ~ f....;::lll)OOO

0

C/l

•

°'

'St
-

r-

M

~~<°'r-:
--<u~~
"'oB~~
"1-l
f....; ·~

C:
(I)

°' °'

13
14
15

....

"'~§-lX 16
0 ·- ... w <
'1-.:5~E-r.....
0
I/)

C/l

17

STATUTES
18 U.S.C. § 3626

............................................................................................................. 5, 7, 9

42 U.S.C. § 1997e

............................................................................................................. 3, 5, 7

F.R.C.P., Rule 23

.................................................................................................................... 3

F.R.E., Rule 803

................................................................................................................... 25

M

18
19
20

OTHER
Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996,
Pub. L. No. 104-134, § 101, 110 Stat. 1321, 1321-70 ....................................................... 7

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{01637244.DOCX}

V

DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 7 of 70

1

I.

2

INTRODUCTION

3

In 1978, Yuba County agreed to a Consent Decree related to the operation of its jail.

4

Plaintiffs' counsel now attempt to use the existence of the Consent Decree as the procedural

5

mechanism to fundamentally expand the obligations, and alter the operation, of the Yuba County

6

jail. Such is improper. Regardless, the Yuba County Jail complies with the Consent Decree and

7

applicable detention standards. There is no legal basis to support impositions of new obligations.

8

Broadly, Plaintiffs' motion seeks two things. First, and order to enforce certain provisions

9

of the 1978 Consent Decree. Second, the imposition of new requirements related to the operation

10

of the Jail (i.e. the "Further Remedial Orders"). To be sure, it is the later which is really at issue in

11

the case. The top of the agenda is with regard to having medical personnel perform the intake

12

process and having medical personnel on-site 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. As to the Consent

13

Decree, Yuba complies with the applicable provisions of it. Yuba County maintains policies,

14

practices and procedures that meet, and in many cases, far exceed, the terms of the Consent

15
t.IJ.~c~~
f--~<> ....
.i,::: ., § .....i X
0 .~ .... w-< 16

Decree. Although Plaintiffs argue Defendants are in violation of key provisions of the Consent

0
0
N

tr1
N
."';:! 00 \0
::ltr1000

f-- <>

E--

QVlO\,,tt-"

-

M

~ <><i::0-:r-.:

--~ u ~ ~

.i::::~ososo

o...:§g'-r.i..
orl'.l
tr)

M

17

Decree (see Motion, 7: 16-17), they fail to identify how any specific provision is violated. As
such, Plaintiffs' Motion should be denied.

18

As to "Further Remedial Orders," any such request beyond the terms of the Consent

19

Decree should be denied as procedurally defective. The "Further Remedial Orders" sought are all

20

beyond the requirements of the Consents Decree, and untethered to any claim. There is no lawsuit 1

21

which raises these issues. There has been no discovery on these issues. Without such, Yuba

22

County is denied due process. Further, most of the "further orders" are incredibly vague and

23

incapable of enforcement. However, should the court decide to address these additional

24

requirements, Plaintiffs' request should still be denied. The County has appropriate policies and

25

practices, and certainly are not "deliberately indifferent" to the rights of its inmates. The new

26

requirements proposed are well beyond any existing state or national standard.

27

Plaintiffs' suggestion, there is no constitutional provision that supports the imposition of the

28

1

Contrary to

Defendants have not been able to locate a copy of the original complaint filed in the late 1970s, or any amendment
thereto. It is Defendants' belief a copy of such does not exist.
{Ol637631D0CX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
1

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 8 of 70

1

proposed new requirements.

2

Plaintiffs' case is built upon a strained application of the law, inferences from records and

3

complaints of certain inmates,2 speculation, and improper and irrelevant opinions of experts. It is

4

on this foundation Plaintiffs' counsels seeks to advance their agenda and impose new obligations

5

that are well beyond applicable standards and constitutional requirements. Tellingly, Plaintiffs

6

have not identified any circumstance where it is alleged the County violates Title 15 of the

7

California Code of Regulations, which identify the standards applicable to jails. As explained

8

below, the Yuba County Jail operates within applicable standards, which has been confirmed by

9

numerous independent third party inspections.

Its officers and medical staff are appropriate

10

trained. It maintains policies and practices that appropriately balance the legitimate interests of

11

the Jail with the rights of inmates. The policies and practices of the Jail certainly do not create an

12

undue risk of harm to them.

II.
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

A.

Lawsuit and Consent Decree
This action commenced on March 24, 1976, upon the filing of a class action complaint by

individual Yuba County Jail inmates seeking declaratory and injunctive relief regarding conditions
18

at the Jail. The defendants were the sheriff, a deputy and the individual members of the county

19

Board of Supervisors serving at that time.

20

As there appears no existing record of the original 1976 Complaint filed in the action, it

21

nonetheless may be generally gleaned from the subsequently-entered Consent Decree and other

22

documents, that the action likely alleged a number of vague constitutional violations generally

23

involving the following subject matters: purported inadequate exercise and recreation facilities;

24

staffing; medical and health care; visiting procedures; cell conditions; due process for

25

punishments; access to legal materials and courts; female access to trusty program; and regulatory

26

jail standards.

27
28

2

The Prisoner litigation Reform Act, as well as County policies, requires a prisoner to file a grievance and exhaust all
remedies before they pursue a lawsuit. For the prisoners referenced in Plaintiffs' Motion, that has not occurred.
{01637631.DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
2

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 9 of 70

On July 23, 1976, a class of Yuba County Jail inmates was apparently certified. 3 The
2

certified class consisted of "all prisoners of the Yuba County Jail on March 24, 1976, or at any

3

time during the pendency of this lawsuit; said class includes three sub-classes: pretrial detainees,

4

convicted prisoners, and female prisoners. "4

5

On November 13, 1976, the District Court filed its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law,

6

and Order following litigation of Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and motions for

7

partial summary judgment. The District Court found that: the lack of exercise and recreation

8

facilities constituted violation of the Fifth and Eighth Amendments; the lack of legal materials and

9

court access constituted violation of the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments; and the lack of

10

female access to the trusty program constituted violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

11

On November 2, 1978, the parties entered into a Consent Decree encompassing many of

12

the issues raised in the action, which was purportedly filed with the District Court six days later.

13

On May 2, 1979, the District Court entered an order formally approving the Consent Decree. In

14

agreeing to issuance of the Consent Decree, Defendants expressly stated therein that they "make

15

no admission to the allegations of the Complaint and deny that the conditions of confinement

~ ~ E ...:i;,.:: 16
oQ..;S~f-i:,...
·- e w <!'.

within the Yuba County Jail are in any way illegal. Defendants enter into the Consent Decree in

0
0

N

V1

f- ll) N
f- .-::::
00 \C)
::ltr1000

0 (/]"

°' ""'"
-

r-<"l

~<U<(O\r-.:

--<u~~
~ os~~
IJ.l ·f~

0
tr)

= °' °'
ll)

(/]

....

17

order to avoid the burdens of litigation and in order to re-affirm their commitment to full

18

compliance with the law." The case was deemed closed in 1987.

19

B.

<"l

History Since Consent Decree and up to Motion to Terminate

20

In the nearly forty years that have passed since the Consent Decree was approved, there

21

have been many changes at the Jail and in the law that render the decree outdated and generally

22

not a useful tool. For example, the population of the Jail has changed due to the housing of ICE

23

detainees. The Jail's population was also affected by Realignment, which, as of 2011, mandates

24
25
26
27
28

3

Defendants note that under current law, this class would not have been certified absent exhaustion of administrative
remedies pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, enacted in 1996. See Porter v.
Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002) (holding that the PLRA's exhaustion requirement "applies to all prisoners seeking
redress for prison circumstances or occurrences," id. at 520, irrespective of whether those conditions are general to
all prisoners or affect only one prisoner in particular.) See Argument Section IV(6), below.
4
Defendants question whether this class definition remains viable under Rule 23(c)(l)(B) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, which was added in 2003: "An order that certifies a class action must define the class and the class
claims, issues, or defenses, and must appoint class counsel under Rule 23(g)." The class definition omits claims,
issues or defenses, and thus is ambiguous.
{01637631.DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
3

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 10 of 70

0
0

1

that individuals sentenced to non-serious, non-violent, or non-sex offenses will serve their

2

sentences in county jails instead of state prison. The Jail's physical layout has changed, as it

3

underwent a remodel in 1992. In addition to changes at the Jail, there has been significant changes

4

in the law since the Consent Decree was approved, including the enactment of the Prison

5

Litigation Reform Act and the Americans with Disability Act. The outdatedness of the Consent

6

Decree is also evident from its reference to entities that no longer exist, such as Bi-County Health.

7

Relying on the mere passage of time without incident, Defendants on May 13, 2013,

8

moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b) to terminate the 1979 Consent Decree under the PLRA. On

9

June 21, 2013, the District Court entered an order replacing Plaintiffs' former counsel with Carter

10

White, head of the King Hall Civil Rights Clinic at U.C. Davis Law School. On March 19, 2014,

11

Plaintiffs filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding Defendants' motion to

12

terminate the consent decree.

13

On March 26, 2014, the District Court sua sponte issued an order giving the parties an

2i?

°' -st r-"' 14
.
.; <t: °' i--:

opportunity to brief within five days whether the consent decree, or any part thereof, should be

0::

15

modified or terminated under rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 31,

oo::~E....:i:><
·- e .i.1 <i: 16
o..:Salf--,"'-

2014, Plaintiffs filed memorandum opposing modification or termination of the Consent Decree,

N

l/"\

'°

E- -~ &A E-::s.,.,ooo

0

-

Cl)

--<u~~
;;...o'°'°
~ .~ C: ~ ~
f-~OJ ....

0
.,.,

"'

Cl)

17

and attaching numerous inmate declarations. On March 31, 2014, Defendants argued that

18

modification of the Consent Decree would be improper, but it should be terminated because

19

Plaintiffs had raised no issues under it in over 35 years. On April 2, 2014, the District Court ruled

20

that it was disregarding its prior Rule 60(b) request and entered an order denying Defendants'

21

motion to terminate the consent decree on the grounds that Defendants did not meet their burden

22

as moving party to produce evidence that the conditions addressed in the Consent Decree had

23

since been relieved.

24

On October 24, 2016, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Enforce Consent Decree and for

25

Further Remedial Orders. Plaintiffs' Proposed Stipulated Order alleges thirty five (35) areas of

26

purported deficiencies, and requests an order on those issues. Those include intake screening,

27

health care implementation, suicide prevention, inpatient care, staffing, and exercise and

28

recreation.
{01637631.DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
4

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 11 of 70

0
0
N

t""' -~
f--<
::I

0 [/)•

lf")

&! 00
-

°' -.:t
lf")

-

'°

0

I'
M

~ "<i'.'.°'r--:

1

On November 16, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Civil

2

Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Through this Motion, Plaintiffs

3

essentially seek leave to supplement "their Complaint" to include alleged violations of the

4

Americans with Disabilities Act and "related laws not in effect at the time Plaintiffs filed their

5

original complaint." The hearing on this Motion is scheduled for January 25, 2017.

6

C.

7

Starting in October 2014, Plaintiffs' counsel and experts started corresponding with

8

Defendants regarding conditions of the Jail. There were several correspondences exchanges. The

9

last substantive correspondence which addressed the claimed deficiencies in the Jail raised in this

10

Motion occurred on December 8, 2015 when Sheriff Durfor sent Rosen Bien a letter regarding

11

status of various items.

12

September 20, 2016, Plaintiffs sent a letter to Defendants' counsel requesting Defendants sign a

13

Proposed Stipulation to Enforce Consent Decree. On September 30, 2016, Defendants requested

14

an extension to respond to the proposed stipulated order, with an agreement to meet and confer.

--<u~~ 15
"'oo'°'°
~
~ ~

·- =

t""' i:'.:

0)

• •

0

l/")

[/)

There was no response to the letter.

Instead, nine months later, on

Plaintiffs denied the request then filed this Motion.

. •

~ E ....n< 16
o"'
e u.i -<
o..s·- ~.-~
M

Meet and Confer

17
18
19

III.
THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT IS THE THRESHOLD
LEGAL STANDARD THAT APPLIES TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION
The Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") limits the power of federal courts to grant or
approve certain remedies in actions challenging prison conditions:

20
21
22
23

Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend
no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular
plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief
unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than
necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive
means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.

24
25
26
27
28

18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(l)(A). As defined by Congress, "the term 'prospective relief means all
relief other than compensatory monetary damages." Id. § 3626(g)(7). "The term 'relief means all
relief in any form that may be granted or approved by the court, and includes consent decrees .... "
Id. § 3626(g)(9).
{01637631 DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
5

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 12 of 70

1

"[B]efore granting prospective injunctive relief, the trial court must make the findings

2

mandated by the PLRA [and must] give 'substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety

3

or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief." Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d

4

1118, 1128-1129 (9th Cir. 2001 ). What is important, and what the PLRA requires, is a finding that

5

the set of reforms being ordered -- the "relief' -- corrects the violations of prisoners' rights with

6

the minimal impact possible on defendants' discretion over their policies and procedures.

7

Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d 1058, 1071 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the PLRA

8

significantly affects the type of prospective injunctive relief that may be awarded, it has not

9

substantially changed the threshold findings and standards required to justify an injunction.

10

0
0
N

lf"l

~
OC/)°'"""r•
<')
f-, -~
'CJ
f-,::llf")000

?il

,;<!'.o,:r-.:

11

In Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 96 L. Ed. 2d 64, 107 S. Ct. 2254 (1994), the Supreme

12

Court articulated a standard to review constitutional rights in a prison setting. Specifically, the

13

Court held that "when a prison regulation impinges on inmates' constitutional rights, the regulation

14

is nonetheless valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests." Id. at 89. The

-~U~~
~ o o'D'D 15
~ ·en C ~ 0::
f-, ...
~~§.....l:>< 16
0 ·- ... W-l <I'.
o..;5gE---"'-'
<!)

0
l/")

<')

C/)

• •

Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1129 (9th Cir. 2001).

Turner Court identified four factors relevant to determining the reasonableness of a policy or

• •

practice: (1) whether there is a valid, rational connection between the practice and a legitimate

17

governmental interest; (2) whether "alternative means" exist for inmates to exercise the

18

constitutional right at stake; (3) the impact of accommodation on prison security, administrative

19

efficiency, prison staff, and the inmate population as a whole; and (4) whether the prison's policy

20

represents an "exaggerated response" to prison concerns. Id. at 87.

21

Turner places on the prison inmates the burden of demonstrating that the challenged prison

22

policy or regulation is unreasonable. See id; see also Casey v. Lewis, 4 F.3d 1516, 1520 (9th Cir.

23

1993). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit emphasized that under the first prong of Turner, the plaintiff-

24

inmates bear the initial burden of refuting a "common sense connection between a prison

25

regulation and the objective that the government's counsel argues the policy was designed to

26

further." Frost v. Symington, 197 F.3d 348, 357 (9th Cir. 1999). Without such a showing, the

27

government's proffered "common sense" objective is presumed legitimate and neutral. See id.

28

II I
(01637631.DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
6

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 13 of 70

1

As discussed below, the PLRA has an administrative exhaustion requirement. No claim

2

may be pursued regarding conditions of a jail until administrative remedies are fully exhausted.

3

42 U.S.C. 1997e(a).

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0
0
N

<r"l

'°

~

f--, -~
f--,:l<r"lOOO
QCl'.lO-'<tt"

- ..,.,
~,;-<°'r--:
--<u~~
02::::::::
c:z:::
µ.l
f--, ·~
c:z::: ~

c::
ll)

E

°' °'

13
14
15

....

oCl'.l

..,.,
<r)

PLAINTIFFS MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE IT EXCEEDS THE TERMS
OF THE CONSENT DECREE AND PLAINTIFFS DID NOT EXHAUST THEIR
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES UNDER THE PLRA

By way of their Motion, Plaintiffs seek to do more than merely enforce the Consent
Decree; they seek to impermissibly expand its scope without complying with the strict procedures
set forth in the PLRA. Since Plaintiffs seek additional remedies under the Consent Decree, they
were required to fully exhaust their administrative remedies regarding the claims made prior to
filing the instant Motion. Plaintiffs did not do so, and their Motion must be denied.
The Ninth Circuit has explained that "the PLRA restricts the power of the court to grant
prospective relief regarding any civil action respecting prison conditions." Oluwa v. Gomez, 133
F.3d 1237, 1239 (9th Cir. 1998) (emphasis added). The fact that a Judgment was approved before
the enactment of the PLRA does not change the status of future remedial requirements as

X

0 ·-< 16
o..;5alf--,""'
...:i
~ u.l

IV.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

"prospective relief." Id. at 1240. To the contrary, the Ninth Circuit has held that 18 U.S.C. § 3626
applies to all relief other than monetary damages "'whether such relief was originally granted or
approved before, on, or after'" the PLRA's enactment. Gilmore v. California, 220 F.3d 987, 999 n.
15 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Omnibus Consolidat ed Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996,
Pub. L. No. 104-134, § 101, 110 Stat. 1321, 1321-70). Thus, a Judgment or Consent Decree,
and any extension thereof, constitute "prospective relief" under the PLRA and are subject to the
requirements of the PLRA. See Hallet v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 742-43 (9th Cir. 2002).
Here, Plaintiffs Motion to Enforce is, in actuality, a request to expand the provisions of
the Consent Decree, and thus a request for prospective relief within the PLRA. As discussed at
length in Section VII below, Defendants are in compliance with the Consent Decree. Further,
Plaintiffs seek to compel Defendants to do things that the Consent Decree does not require
Defendants to do. In other words, Plaintiffs are asking the court to craft an additional order that
would govern services at the prison, thus making the request both nonmonetary and future
{01637631.DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
7

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 14 of 70

0
0
N

lf"l

f-; '-' N
f-; .1:;
co - \C)
:l<r,COO
QCll0'\"1'1'•

-

M

~ "'<l'.°'r-:
-~u~~

1

oriented. That being so, section 3626(a)(l )(A) of the PLRA constrains the court's power to extend

2

jurisdiction over the Consent Decree. See Hallet, 296 F.3d at 742. Plaintiffs' requested expansion

3

of the Consent decree must therefore be analyzed under the requirements of the PLRA.

4

A.

5

As a threshold matter, Plaintiffs' attempt to expand the Consent Decree fails because they

6

do not meet exhaustion requirements of the PLRA. The PLRA provides that "[n]o action shall be

7

brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 ... , or any other Federal law, by a

8

prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative

9

remedies as are available are exhausted." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); see also McCarthy v. Madigan,

10

503 U.S. 140, 144 (1992) ("[w]here Congress specifically mandates, exhaustion is required"),

11

superseded by statute as stated in Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001); Morton v. Hall, 599

12

F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2010). The exhaustion requirement of the PLRA "applies to all inmate

13

suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and

14

whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong." Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532

15
~oo'°'°
~ ·- C: ~;;

f-;~o ....
~ ~ E ...:i X

0 ·- i:: w <l'.
i:i..;5~r....
0
lf"l
M

C/l

Plaintiffs Did Not Exhaust Administrative Remedies

(2002).

16

The proper exhaustion of available administrative remedies prior to commencement of a

17

civil action is mandatory under the PLRA (Booth, 532 U.S. at 741), and "[p]roper exhaustion

18

demands compliance with an agency's deadlines and other critical procedural rules[.]" Woodford

19

v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006). Thus, prisoners must fully exhaust their administrative remedies

20

prior to filing suit. See McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1999 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam)

21

(requiring dismissal without prejudice where a prisoner "d[oes] not exhaust his administrative

22

remedies prior to filing suit but is in the process of doing so when a motion to dismiss is filed");

23

see also Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1006-7 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that exhaustion

24

requirement is satisfied so long as the prisoner exhausted his administrative remedies with respect

25

to new claims asserted in the second amended complaint before tendering that complaint for

26

filing); Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F .3d 104 7, 1050-51 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that a prisoner

27

must exhaust his administrative remedies before sending his complaint to the district court). It is

28

well established that to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA, a prisoner is required to
(01637631.DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
8

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 15 of 70

0
0
N

l(")

E- -~ &l - ~
£-,:ll(")OOO

- ,..,
°'
-~u~~

0

. °'

Cl'.)

;;; .; -<

-st

r--

1

submit an inmate appeal at the appropriate level and proceed to the highest level of review

2

available to him. See Butler v. Adams, 397 F.3d 1181, 1183 (9th Cir. 2005); Bennett v. King, 293

3

F.3d 1096, 1098 (9th Cir. 2002) (emphasis added).

4

Since proper exhaustion is necessary, a prisoner cannot satisfy PLRA exhaustion

5

requirements by filing an untimely or otherwise procedurally defective administrative grievance or

6

appeal. See Ngo, 548 U.S. at 90-93. "[T]o properly exhaust administrative remedies[,] prisoners

7

'must complete the administrative review process in accordance with the applicable procedural

8

rules,' [] rules that are defined not by the PLRA, but by the prison grievance process itself."

9

Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199,218 (2007) (quoting Ngo, 548 U.S. at 88). Thus, "[t]he level of detail

10

necessary in a grievance to comply with the grievance procedures will vary from system to system

11

and claim to claim, but it is the prison's requirements, and not the PLRA, that define the

12

boundaries of proper exhaustion." Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007). Although, it is well

13

established that administrative remedies may not be exhausted where the grievance, liberally

14

construed, does not have the same subject and same request for relief. See Morton v. Hall, 599

15

F .3d 942, 946 (9th Cir. 2010).

i--:

i:,::;,.o~~

u.J.~15;;~
E- ~
i:,::: ~ E ....l >< 16
0 ·- ~ Ul -<
<I)

••••

c..;Salf-'"'0

,..,
l/")

Cl'.)

As a threshold, Plaintiffs have not met their burden of establishing exhaustion of

17

administrative remedies. They have not filed proper administrative grievances or appealed the

18

same with regard to the complaints identified in the instant Motion. Plaintiffs' failure to exhaust

19

administrative remedies prior to filing the instant Motion as required by the PLRA mandates that

20

their Motion be denied.

21

B.

Plaintiffs Cannot Establish a Constitutional Violation Warranting Prospective Relief

22

Plaintiffs' Motion also fails because they did not establish an ongoing constitutional

23

violation as required by the PLRA. Under the PLRA, the court must find that the prospective

24

relief is "narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal

25

right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right,"

26

before granting injunctive relief. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(l)(A). This standard requires the existence

27

of a constitutional "violation" in need of correction. The text of section 3626(a)(l)(A) suggests

28

that, in the absence of a "current and ongoing" violation, there is no occasion to fashion
{01637631.DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
9

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 16 of 70

1

prospective relief to cure the violation. In other words, if a violation no longer exists, the statute

2

does not permit the court to order prospective relief. See Hallet, 296 F.3d at 743.

3

Here, Plaintiffs have not established the existence of a current and ongoing violation of

4

their constitutional rights. To the contrary, Defendants have complied with all aspects of the

5

Consent Decree and are not deliberately indifferent to the rights of the inmates in the Jail. See

6

Sections VI and VII below. Without a constitutional violation to correct, the court cannot order

7

prospective relief under the PLRA. Therefore, Plaintiffs' Motion must be denied.

8

V.

9

DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE STANDARDS

10

0
0
N

.,-,

f- <!) N
f- .<::
00 ::i.,-,ooo

0 (/)

•

°'

'St t--

M

---<U~~
ei::02:::2:=2
i:.r.l
·- C:
r-<~<1)

°'....°'

c,::~E....i:><
o..:§gf-r.i..

0 ·- ~ w <C
0

"'
M

(/)

11

relief requested.

12

amount to "deliberate indifference." Plaintiffs have not analyzed how that standard is applied to

13

claims against an entity.

'°

~ ,;<Co;C--:

Plaintiffs repeatedly reference the County being "deliberately indifferent" to justify the
However, Plaintiffs fail to establish how the County's policies or practices

14

"Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard." Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057

15

(9th Cir. 2004). Even gross negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference to serious

16

medical needs. See id. at 1060. ·"[S]tate prison authorities have wide discretion regarding the

17

nature and extent of medical treatment." Jones v. Johnson, 781 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir. 1986). 5

18

To establish a violation of this duty, the prisoner must establish that the prison official was

19

"deliberately indifferent to a serious threat to the inmate's safety." See Farmer v. Brennan, 511

20

U.S. 825, 834 (1994). The Supreme Court has explained that "deliberate indifference entails

21

something more than mere negligence ... [but] something less than acts or omissions for the very

22

purpose of causing harm or with the knowledge that harm will result." Id. at 835. The Court

23

defined this "deliberate indifference" standard as equal to "recklessness," in which ''a person

24

disregards a risk of harm of which he is aware." Id. at 836, 837.

25

Deliberate indifference is shown by facts indicating that prison officials knew of and

26

consciously disregarded a substantial risk of harm to the prisoner's health.

27

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).

28

5 Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1083 (9th Cir. 2014) overruled Jones to the extent it can be read to apply to

See Farmer v.

A mere difference of opinion as to what constitutes a

monetary damages against an official who lacks authority over budgeting decisions.
{01637631.DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
10

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 17 of 70

1

medically acceptable course of treatment does not qualify as deliberate indifference. See Sanchez

2

v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989).

3

Although the standard for pretrial detainees comes out of the Fourteenth Amendment, the

4

court uses the same standard as the Eighth Amendment. See Pierce v. County of Orange, 526 F.3d

5

1190, 1205 (9th Cir. 2008) (pretrial detainee's right to be free from punishment is grounded in the

6

Due Process Clause, but courts borrow from Eighth Amendment jurisprudence when analyzing the

7

rights of pretrial detainees); see also Clouthier v. County of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1241-44

8

(9th Cir. 2010) (the deliberate indifference standard applies to due process claims that correction

9

facility officials failed to address the medical needs of a pretrial detainee )6 and Johnson v. Meltzer,

10

134 F.3d 1393, 1398 (9th Cir. 1998) (stating that the Eighth Amendment establishes minimum

11

standard of medical care for pretrial detainees).

12

A municipality may only be liable where it causes a constitutional violation via "execution

13

of a government's policy or custom, whether by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts

14

may fairly be said to represent them." Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 659 (1978);

ct:!o.8~~ 15

Ulrich v. City & County of San Francisco, 308 F.3d 968, 984 (9th Cir. 2002). An entity can only

0
0

N v;

'°

f-, -~ &:l f-,:lv;ooO

Q<:llOS-srt-

---< u °'~ ~r-,:
2i5

•

Q)

-

M

<t:

r..I.l ·i::
f-,
~ I!)

°' °'
••••

~~E....i:X:

0 ·- f': U..l <t:
o..:§~f--<r.i..

.,.,

0

M

(/)

16

be liable for a Monell claim if there is an underlying constitutional violation in this case. See City

17

of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799 (1986) (no Monell liability in the absence of

18

constitutional violation). Notably, "where the policy relied upon is not itself unconstitutional,

19

considerably more proof than the single incident will be necessary in every case to establish both

20

the requisite fault on the part of the municipality and the causal connection between the policy and

21

the constitutional deprivation." City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 822 (1985).

22

Absent a formal government policy that is unconstitutional, Plaintiff must demonstrate the

23

existence of a "longstanding practice or custom" of constitutional violations. See Trevino v. Gates,

24

99 F.3d 911,918 (9th Cir. 1996). As the Ninth Circuit explained in Trevino:

25
26

The custom must be so persistent and widespread that it constitutes a permanent
and well-settled city policy . . . . Liability for improper custom may not be

27

6 Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1070 (9th Cir. 2016) overruled Clouthier to the extent that it

28

identified a single deliberate indifference standard for all § 1983 claims and to the extent that it required a plaintiff to
prove an individual defendant's subjective intent to punish in the context of a pretrial detainee's failure to protect
claim.
{Ol637631D0CX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
11

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 18 of 70

2

predicated on isolated or sporadic incidents; it must be founded upon practices of
sufficient duration, frequency and consistency that the conduct has become a
traditional method of carrying out policy.

3

Id. at 918 (affirming summary judgment in favor of defendant municipality where plaintiff

4

alleged the city council had a custom of paying officers punitive damages in 11 or 12 excessive

5

force cases); see also Henderson v. City and County of San Francisco, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

6

87262, *11 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (summary judgment granted as to Monell claim where plaintiffs, who

7

were present and former inmates of San Francisco county jail, alleged individual deputy

8

defendants violated their rights by using excessive force and were deliberately indifferent to

9

serious medical needs on six separate occasions, with a letter referencing eighteen additional

1

10

0
0

N

V"\

'°

f--< .~
&l f--,
;:lV)000

11

VI.

12

DEFENDANTS ARE NOT DELIBERATELY
INDIFFERENT TO THE RIGHTS OF INMATES

13

°' "'" r--

14

-«<u~~
~ 0 .s:=:;:::

15

0

Cll

i:il .; -< °' r-:
~
f--<

"

·~
-

-

i::
~

M

°'....°'

~~§-l>::
0 .::: .... ~-<

o..;S~f--,..,.
0
V)

M

Cll

grievances submitted by jail inmates involving similar alleged misconduct).

16
17
18
19

The County maintains policies and practices that govern the operation of its jail. Those
policies appropriately balance the rights of the inmates with the need of the County to operate its
jail in an effective and safe manner. The County trains its officers and has processes in place
which ensure the safety and security of all who are in the Jail. As described below, the Jail is
inspected by numerous outside agencies that overwhelmingly have found the Jail operates
according to applicable standards, including Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations and
applicable National Detention Standards.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiffs have produced no evidence to show the policies or practices of the Yuba County
Jail are unconstitutional and "reckless" and disregard the rights of the inmates. To the contrary,
the policies exist and are applied to protect the rights of inmates, while at the same time securing
the safety of all those who operate, and are in, the Jail.

A.

Training of Staff
Yuba County Jail staff receive significant training. They are well versed in the rules and

regulations, and comply with applicable policies and procedures.
Once a Correctional Officer is hired, he or she is on probation for 18 months.

See

Declaration Regarding Training, , 3. In the first year, the officer must complete the Standards and
{01637631.DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
12

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - ------Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 19 of 70

Training Corrections Program (STC) Certified Core Academy. Id., ,i 4 and Adult Correction Core

0
0
NII")

f&:l - 'Ci
f- -~
::lll")000

QCllo,..;-r•

~

-

f"\

2

Course, Exhibit O to the Appendix of Exhibits. Typically, that consists of taking the Core Course

3

at Yuba Community College, which for Correctional Officers is approximately 149.50 hours of

4

instruction. Id. Following that, they must complete a 24 hour POST Certification Course. Id.

5

Training includes intake procedures, assessment, monitoring psychological and physical health,

6

and emergency procedures, among other things. Id.

7

Also, during the 18 months probationary period, the officer participates in a formal Jail

8

Training Officer (JTO) Program. See Declaration Regarding Training, ,i 5. Each new hire is

9

assigned to a specific training officer, or officers. Id. Specific training modules must be completed.

10

Id. Topics include intake, medical issues, use of cells, and recreation, among other things. Id. The

11

officer's competency to perform the job is continually assessed, and at the end must pass a written

12

test. Id. If not found competent to perform the job, the person is released from probation. Id.

13

After the first year, the corrections officer has continuing training obligations. See

14

Declaration Regarding Training, ,i 6; see also Jail Policy Order A-401, Bates page nos. 8978-8979

<1)-<"'r--:
-~ u ~ ~ 15
~ os':=:::::

°' °'

r..i.l
·- t:: ....
f-~u

~~E....i:X:

0 ·- f:: µJ -<
o..:§~f-r.i...
0
II")

(ll

of Exhibit C to Appendix of Exhibits. BSCC also monitors training, and have found the Yuba Jail

16

in compliance. See Exhibit P to Appendix of Exhibits. Each year the Sheriff must submit an

17

annual training plan to the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC). See Declaration

18

Regarding Training, ,i 6.

f"\

19

Yearly training includes statutory training required pursuant to Title 15. See Declaration

20

Regarding Training, ,i 6. Correctional Officers supervising adult prisoners must receive 24 hours

21

of STC certified training per year, including specialized and/or refresher training that develop and

22

enhance their job-related skills. Id. Correctional Officers for Yuba County comply with this

23

request. Id.

24

Also, Yuba County provides monthly training which covers a variety of topics. See

25

Declaration Regarding Training, ,i 6, 8.

That training also includes topics such as suicide

26

prevention, first aid, and mental health issues. Id. In addition to the monthly training, correctional

27

officers participate in daily training, referred to as "Roll Call Training." Id., ,i9; see also Order A-

28

401 - Staff Training, Bates page nos. 8978-8979 of Exhibit C to Appendix of Exhibits. At the

•

{01637631.DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
13

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 20 of 70

0
0
N

tr1

~

'°

f- -~
f-::ltr1000

--<u~~
~os"'~~
0 Cl). °' 'St ,.,.,
r~ ~<!'.°'r--:
µ.l
f- ·~ i::
(I)

°' °'

~ ~ ~ .....l X

o...:§~f-r.,...
0
tr)

Cl)

beginning of each shift, there is a briefing. Id. During those daily briefings, topics are covered

2

regarding a variety of aspects of the Jail, including intake procedures, use of cells, medical

3

screening, health assessment, suicide issues, mental health issues, and prescription medication. Id.

4

When dealing with medical/mental health issues, the training is often provided by one of those

5

professionals. Id.

6

policies and procedures. See Declaration Regarding Training,

7

Appendix of Exhibits. Medical staff employed by the Jail are also trained on jail policies. See

8

Declaration Regarding Training, 1 11.

Medical staff also receive training, including training regarding applicable

1 11;

see also Exhibit D to the

9

In addition to the training, on Wednesdays, medical staff, mental health staff, and

10

correctional officer staff meet to discuss ongoing medical and mental health issues involving

11

inmates. See Declaration Regarding Training, 1 10. Participants include the Jail Physician, Family

12

Nurse Practitioner, a representative from Mental Health, the Medical Executive Assistant, and the

13

Jail Captain and/or Jail Lieutenant. Other Medical or Mental Health Staff attend if they are

14

available. Id. During these meetings, applicable policies and procedures are reviewed and

15

discussed to ensure they are being followed. Id.

•••

0 ·- ... w <!'.

,.,.,

1

16

The staff that provides mental health services are employed by the Sutter Yuba Behavioral

17

Health.

18

Regarding Mental Health Services,

19

orientation/training phase, the person receives comprehensive training by SYBH, including on

20

topics such as adult assessment; mental status exams; assessment of danger to self, others, gravely

21

disabled; management of agitated or combative patients; violence risk assessment; suicide risk

22

assessment, among other things. Id. Following that, Crisis Counselors receive on-going training

23

on an array of topics, including triage, assessments, safety, laws and regulations, mental illness,

24

substance abuse, resource linking, etc. Id.,

25

variety of topics including ethics, changes to laws and county procedures, crisis management, de-

26

escalation of clients, as well as updates to assessments, and prevention of suicide. Id. SYBH has

27

recently purchased Relias, which is a teaching curriculum. Id.,

28

assessment of suicidal behavior, treatment, and management. Id. There is appropriately 16.5 hours

Crisis Counselors are provided with on-the-job training upon hire. See Declaration

1 11; see also

1 12.

Exhibit Q to Appendix of Exhibits. During the

Teaching is maintained on an annual basis on a

1 12.

It covers topics such as

(01637631.DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
14

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 21 of 70

1

of course instruction per year. Id.

2

C.

3

The Yuba County Jail is constantly inspected by outside agencies. Of relevance to the

4

issues raised by Plaintiffs, the Jail is inspected by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

5

every year; by the California Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) every two years;

6

and by the Yuba County Health Inspector each year. In addition, the Yuba County Grand Jury

7

reports on the Jail each year. Overall, those inspections have demonstrated that the Yuba County

8

Jail operates appropriately and according to applicable standards.

9

Third Party Inspections of Yuba County Jail

1. ICE Inspections

10

The Yuba County Jail 1s used to house ICE detainees. See Declaration Regarding

15.

11

Operation of the Yuba County Jail,

12

Regarding Inspections, 1 6. The purpose of the inspection is to evaluate compliance with National

13

Detention Standards. Id.; see also Exhibits Jl-8. A "Detention Standard Review" is conducted. Id.

14

The Review includes recreation, health services, suicide prevention, and administrative

15
O::::;,.,o'°'°
~ .~ C ~ ~

segregation. Id. Every evaluation includes a review of applicable policies and speaking with

0
0
N

in

~ - \0
f-::linooO
0 C/l
'<:I" r-E- .~

. °'

- ""

~o.i<t:°'r--:
-~u~~
E-

0::::

~

'->

"'§

0

C/l

See Declaration

••..

.....l X

0 -~ ... W-l <t:
o.:§~E-r.i..

"'
""

As such, it is inspected each year.

16

inmates. Id.

17

In 2009, the Jail was found to be compliant with standards and received an "acceptable"

18

rating. See Declaration Regarding Inspections, 1 6; see also Bates page nos. 2917-2923 of Exhibit

19

J1 to Appendix of Exhibits. As to recreation, the standards were found to have been met. Id., Bates

20

page nos. 2944-2945. As to healthcare, applicable standards were met. Id., Bates page nos. 2952-

21

2959. The report notes "besides on-site services, appropriate arrangements are in place regarding

22

ambulatory medical specialty services, emergency services, and in-patient hospital services in the

23

immediate area, when medically necessary. The facility does not accept or retain detainees with

24

serious medical conditions and transfer arrangements are made for such cases." Id., Bates page no.

25

2956. Suicide prevention issues are specifically addressed. Id., Bates page no. 2957. This includes

26

evaluation and training, the intake process, written procedures, and rooms used for the housing,

27

evaluation, and treatment of inmates. Id. The Jail was found to meet all standards. Id.

28

Ill
(01637631.DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE

15

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 22 of 70

1

0
0
N

or,

E- .~ ~ - \0
f--< ::l,r,ooO
0 C/l,
<:I' r-M

°'

2

1 6;

3

was the Jail was operating in compliance with applicable standards and receiving rating of

4

acceptable. Id., Bates page nos. 2991-2993.

5

reached as in the prior year. Id., Bates page nos. 3023-3024. Similar conclusions were also

6

reached with regards to the provision of healthcare services and suicide prevention. Id., Bates

7

page nos. 3030-3040. The inspector noted the facility's suicide prevention and intervention

8

training is comprehensive. Id., Bates page no. 3038. It also notes that assignment to a safety cell

9

requires security personnel to document direct visual observation of the detainee who is on suicide

10

watch two times every 30 minutes, and that the irregular timing of the observation prevents the

11

suicidal detainee from predetermining the timing of the next observation. Id. The inspection

12

reports no suicide attempts since last inspection. Id., Bates page no. 2997.

13

specifically addresses administrative segregation of inmates. Id., Bates page nos. 3059-3061. The

14

Jail was found compliant in all applicable areas. Id.

~~-<°'r--:
-«<u~~
15
ci:::oo'°'°
w
·:;; E ~~
f--< ...

11)

see also Bates page nos. 2991-3073 of Exhibit J2 to Appendix of Exhibits. The conclusion

5 ~~ w-<
r-

0 ·-

With regard to recreation, similar conclusions were

The review also

In November 2011, ICE completed its yearly inspection of the Yuba County Jail. See

....

c:i:::~E..J~
0...

In December 2010, the Jail was inspected by ICE. See Declaration Regarding Inspections,

1 6;

16

Declaration Regarding Inspections,

17

Appendix of Exhibits. The conclusion was that the Jail was compliant and received a rating of

18

acceptable. Id., Bates page nos. 3074-3076. Noted in the report was a suicide attempt. Id. From the

19

report, it is noted that at the time of intake, nothing of concern was identified. Id. A medical

20

examination was completed five days later. Id. At that time, the detainee expressed some anxiety

21

and depression. Id. Therefore, the detainee was referred to mental health for assessment. Id. A

22

mental health professional talked to the detainee and determined that he was suitable for general

23

population housing. Id. Two days later, the detainee was seen by security staff attempting hanging.

24

Id. That attempt was prevented. Id. The detainee was then seen by a mental health counselor and

25

placed in a safety cell for suicide watch. Id. A day later, the detainee was seen in the safety cell by

26

the mental health counselor and transferred to the Sacramento Jail Mental Health Ward for in-

27

patient services. Id.

28

I II

see also Bates page nos. 3074-3081 of Exhibit J3 to

'-1-,

0

or,
M

C/l

{01637631.DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
16

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 23 of 70

In November 2012, the annual ICE inspection was completed. See Declaration Regarding
2

Inspections, , 6; see also Bates page nos. 3082-3184 of Exhibit J4 to Appendix of Exhibits. Again,

3

the Jail was found to be compliant in all areas and received a rating of acceptable. Id., Bates page

4

nos. 3082-383.

5

recreational specialist was not employed at that time. Id., Bates page nos. 3116-3118. It was noted

6

that the Administrative Sgt. was designated as the facility recreation officer and was responsible

7

for overseeing the recreation programs. Id. (Note: A "Does Not Meet Standards" is also identified

8

with regards to detainees having access to recreation outside housing units one hour a day, five

9

days a week. That is because the Consent Decree requires the County to offer recreation two

10

hours a day, four days a week.) Provision of healthcare services was also addressed. Id., Bates

11

page nos. 3127-3140. With regard to access to medical care, all standards were met. Id., Bates

12

page nos. 3131-3134. With regard to suicide prevention, all standards were met. Id., Bates page

13

nos. 3136-3137. With regard to administrative segregation, all standards were met. Id., Bates page

14

nos. 3165-3168. It was noted that to evaluate the standard, "[t]he segregation area was toured,

15

various logs and forms were inspected, staff were interviewed, detainees were interviewed, and the

~ ~ E ...J X
w <1'.
0 ·o...:§~E-"1.

16

policy was reviewed." Id., Bates page no. 3168.

ell

17

0
0
N

f- <l)
f- .-:::
;:I

tr'>
N

'°

00
tr'> -00 0
QCll0'\"1"1'•

-

M

~ ,.;<1'.o.:c-:

--<u~~
>-.o'°'°

~
~ ·"= C:
f-~<l) ....

a:: ;;

e

0
tr)

M

With regards to recreation, standards were met, except it was noted that a

In November 2013, ICE performed its annual inspection.

See Declaration Regarding

18

Inspections,, 6; see also Bates page nos. 6550-6554 and 28067-28068 of Exhibit JS to Appendix

19

of Exhibits. Again, the Jail was found in compliance with applicable standards and received a

20

rating of acceptable. Id., Bates page no. 6553. Again, it was noted no suicide attempts. Id.

21

In November 2014, the annual inspection was performed. See Declaration Regarding

22

Inspections,, 6; see also Bates page nos. 0464-0583 and 0626-0629 of Exhibit J6 to Appendix of

23

Exhibits. Again, the Jail was found compliant with regards to all standards and received a rating

24

of acceptable. Id., Bates page nos. 0582-0583. With regard to recreation, all standards were met

25

(except, as noted above, regarding 1 hour/5 days week as the County is required to have 2 hours/4

26

days a week). Id., Bates page nos. 0499-501. With regard to healthcare services, applicable

27

standards were met. Id., Bates page nos. 512-529. With regards to medical care, an overall rating

28

of "meets standards" was found. Id., Bates page no. 0523. It was noted, "the facility provides
{01637631.DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
17

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 24 of 70

1

timely access to medical, dental, and mental health services through appropriately trained and/or

2

licensed healthcare professionals for routine care and chronic and emergency conditions." Id. In

3

two subcategories, it was found that the County did not meet standards with regards to medical

4

facilities. Id. Specifically; (1) holding/waiting room being under direct supervision (as detainees

5

are placed in waiting rooms in the medical department that are not under direct supervision); and

6

(2) with regards to TB screening, a review of records indicated that 8 inmates did not receive TB

7

screening within one business day. Id. With regards to suicide prevention, applicable standards

8

were met. Id., Bates page nos. 0524-0525. It is specifically noted there are suicide prevention and

9

intervention policies and training practices in place to protect detainees at risk for suicide. Id.,

10

Bates page no. 0525.

11

administrative segregation, all standards were met. Id., Bates page nos. 0555-0560.

There were no suicide attempts in the prior year. Id. With regard to

12

In November 2015, the annual inspection was performed. See Declaration Regarding

13

Inspections,~ 6; see also Bates page nos. 0584-0586 and 0630-0769 of Exhibit J7 to Appendix of

14

Exhibits. The 2015 inspection again concluded that the Jail was in compliance with standards, and

~02:::::£ 15

received an overall rating of acceptable. Id., Bates page nos. 0584-0586. The inspector concluded

0
0

N

V"l

&l -

'°

f--,
f--, .~
:::v-,ooO
QCIJO,-.:tt-

2i

•

-

M

.;<('.0\1'

-~u~~

°' °'

i:.Ll ·- C: . . . .
f--,~<>

~~E....iX 16
oii.:§
·- e~f-i:i..
w..i <i::
0
V)

M

CIJ

that the housing area "provides adequate open space for dayroom activities. There was an outdoor

17

recreation activity area, which is available to ICE detainees on a regular basis. Id. The atmosphere

18

throughout the facility is relaxed and detainees were witnessed frequently speaking with facility

19

and ICE personnel in an informal yet respectful manner. ... Detainees freely spoke with inspectors

20

in confidential and public arenas. They registered no concern/complaints regarding their personal

21

safety, living environment, activities, programs, treatment by staff, or availability to or response

22

from the ICE personnel." Id., Bates page no. 0585. With regard to recreation, all standards were

23

met. Id., Bates page nos. 0673-0676.

24

available for those detainees with disabilities." Id., Bates page no. 0676. With regard to healthcare

25

standards (Id., Bates page nos. 0668-0703), the overall rating was "meets standards." Id., Bates

26

page no. 0703. With regards to access to medical care, all standards were met. Id., Bates page no.

27

0697. The evaluator noted: "The OIC negotiates and keeps current arrangements with nearby

28

medical facilities/providers to provide required healthcare not available within the facility .... the

It is specifically noted that "recreation activities are

{01617631 t : : J - - = . . O C . . : . . : X ~ } - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
18

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 25 of 70

1

healthcare specialist determines medical treatment. ,i . . . Detainees reporting the use of or

2

dependence on mood or mind-altering substances are evaluated.

3

guidelines for evaluation and treatment of new arrivals that require detoxification, including

4

hospitalization, if necessary.

5

Officers meet and refer the detainee requiring emergency medical care to healthcare providers. ,i

6

... The Executive Assistant and the OIC manage first aid kits. The detention staff are trained to

7

respond to medical emergencies as per standard." Id. With regards to suicide prevention, all

8

standards were met. Id., Bates page nos. 0698-0699. There were no detainee suicide attempts in

9

last 12 months. Id., Bates page no. 0699. With regards to administrative segregation the overall

10

0
0
N

If)

The CD has established

,i ... translation services are available via the Language Line.

rating was "meets standards." Id., Bates page nos. 0736-0740.

11

In November 2016, ICE conducted its inspection. See Declaration Regarding Inspections,

12

,i 6; see also Bates page nos. 27909-28062 of Exhibit J8 to Appendix of Exhibits. Again, the Jail

13

was overall found to be in compliance with standards and received a rating of "acceptable." Id.,

r' -~ &l - '°
f--,;::llf)Q00

°' r-- 14 Bates page nos. 27910-27912. With regards to recreation, all applicable standards were met. Id.,
iiS~<l'.°'r--:

0

'St

Cl)

"

-

M

--<u~~
~;,-.0-0'°
t..L.J .~

r'

~

'E:

~ ~

<!)

....

~ ~ E ....i ~
~ w <I'.
o..:5~E--<r.,...

0 ·0

If)

M

Cl)

15

Bates page nos. 27958-27961. With regard to access to medical care (id., Bates page nos. 27976-

16

27988), an overall rating of "meets standards" was determined.

17

However, there were a couple of areas which were found not to meet standards. Id., Bates page

18

nos. 27987.

19

within one business day.Jg. There was also a failure to meet standards with regards to forwarding

20

documentation from intake to medical. Id. Those identified with medical problems had their forms

21

forwarded. Id. However, when there was no indication of medical need, those forms were not

22

consistently forwarded. Id. In addition, those in Special Management Units· are to be contacted

23

daily by medical staff.

24

occurring. Id. Lastly, it was found that medical treatment consent forms were not consistently

25

signed and filed in the detainee' s medical record. Id.

Id., Bates page no. 27988.

Specifically, it was determined that TB screening was not consistently completed

Id. It was determined that these daily contacts were not consistently

26

The 2016 inspection report does conclude that there are established guidelines for the

27

evaluation and treatment of new arrivals who require detoxification that permit withdrawal with

28

minimum physiological and physical discomfort. Id., Bates page no. 27987.
{0163763JDOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
19

It is further noted

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 26 of 70

0
0

N

V"l

r" -~ &:l - "'
r<::lV">ooO
QC/lO,'tj-t"

-

M

~o<t:c,,;r-,:

-~u~~

i::.::: _., 0 "' "'
U-J ·~ E ;;'. ~

r" ....

<I)

§ ....l

::S

g E-

Q.,

0
V)

M

C/l

that placement of first aid kits are consistent with the American Correction Association

2

requirement. Id. With regards to suicide prevention, all standards were met. Id., Bates page nos.

3

27989-27990. It was noted that staff training curriculum includes identification of suicide risk

4

factors and the psychological profile of a suicidal detainee, and responding to an in-progress

5

suicide attempt. Id., Bates page no. 27990. It was again noted there were no ICE detainee suicides

6

or serious suicide attempts in the facility in the past 12 months. Id. There were 14 ICE detainees

7

placed on suicide watch during that time. Id. Per review of the records, documentation indicated

8

medical and mental healthcare was consistent with established policies and procedures and the

9

documentation was accurate, timely, and appropriate. Id. With regards to administrative

10

segregation, an overall rating of "meets standards" was found. Id., Bates page nos. 28028-28030.

11

However, it was found that standard was not met with regards to medical professionals seeing

12

detainees in administrative segregation each day. Id., Bates page nos. 28030. Only detainees who

13

were receiving medication or treatment were being seen each day. Id. Lastly, it was noted that the

14

administrative unit log showed that medical personnel were not signing the individual detainee

15

record either during or after visiting the detainee in administrative segregation. Id. Based upon a

16

review of all those in administrative segregation, it was noted they all believed they were treated

17

respectfully and had access to phones and recreation. Id.

...

i::.::: ~

0 ·- ....

1

..i.l

X
<i:
r.i..

18

2.

19

Each year, an inspection is performed by the Yuba County Environmental Health

20

Department. See Declaration Regarding Inspections,~ 9; see also Exhibits Kl-K4 to Appendix of

21

Exhibits.

22

nutritional health, and (3) medical/mental health. Id.

Environmental Health Evaluation

The inspection evaluates the Jail in the context of (1) environmental health, (2)

23

In 2011, the Jail was in general compliance with the three categories save for ( 1) several

24

mattresses requiring replacement or repair; (2) there was not a full-time dietician approving meals

25

and changes in meals were not noted in writing; (3) treatment was grouped for inmates illnesses

26

and diseases rather than individualized; (4) and the Jail transfers psychotic inmates to a licensed

27

health facility rather than involuntarily administering psychotropic medications in emergencies.

28

Id.,~ 10; Bates page nos. 6598-6640 of Exhibit Kl.
{01637631.DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE

20

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 27 of 70

In 2012, the Jail was in general compliance with the three categories. Specifically, the

0
0
N

f--,
f--,

0)

,r-,
N

2

report indicates that the Jail complied with the following categories, among others: (1) special

3

mental disorder assessment; (2) medical receiving screening; (3) access to treatment; (4) sick call;

4

(5) psychotropic medications; (6) suicide prevention program; (7) mentally disordered inmates; (8)

5

use of safety cell; (9) use of sobering cell, and; (10) developmentally disabled inmates. In terms of

6

minor non-compliance, several mattresses were found to require replacement or repair, and a

7

registered dietician did not approve the menus and changes in the meals were not noted in writing.

8

Id., ,i 11; Bates page nos. 6641-6666 of Exhibit K2.

9

In 2013, the report highlighted that the Jail has six separate inspections each year. The only

10

deficiency found was that the Jail still did not retain a registered dietician to review the diet

11

manual. Id., ,i 12; Bates page nos. 6667-6669 of Exhibit K3.

12

Between April 2015 and June 2015, the Environmental Health Annual Inspection occurred.

13

Id., ,i 13; Bates page nos. 6700-6734 of Exhibit K4. Section III of the inspection report addresses

14

medical/mental health evaluation. Id., ,i 13; Bates page nos. 6719-6734 of Exhibit K4. In 2015,

15

the County was found in compliance except in five areas. Id.

·'=::S,r-,ooO
00 '°

Q<ZlOs"1't•

-

M

Uu,oci::o-;C--:
(/J~;.,)~~

=a:: ;;::

~;,...o''-0'°

µJ .~
f--,~<U ....

~~E....lX
0 ·- ~ w.l <: 16
o..;§aiE---r....
0
tr)

M

IZl

The first was with regards to clinical judgment being the sole province of the responsible

17

physician, dentist, psychiatrist, or psychologist. Id., Bates page no. 6719 of Exhibit K4. The

18

County was found out of compliance based upon the County not following the recommendation of

19

a doctor, Dr. Cassidy, regarding treatment of two separate women who allegedly had been the

20

victims of sexual assault. See Declaration Regarding Inspections, ,i 13a. It was Dr. Cassidy's

21

understanding that those assaults had occurred within a very short time before incarceration. Id.

22

However, when the Jail looked into the matter, they were informed that those assaults had

23

occurred long before incarceration and in both cases, investigators felt a sexual assault

24

examination was unnecessary due to the length of time that has passed. Id. Given that additional

25

information, Dr. Cassidy agreed that the decision was appropriate. Id.

26

The second area concerned individualized treatment plans. See Declaration Regarding

27

Inspections, ,i 13b.; see also Bates page no. 6724 of Exhibit K4. In the comments it is noted that a

28

plan has been developed for inmates with individual illnesses, fractures, surgery, detox, and
{01637631.DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
21

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 28 of 70

infectious disease; custody staff is made aware of important specialty care items; medications are

2 released with inmates for chronic and acute disease care. Id.
3

The third items concerned involuntary administration of psychotropic medication being

4

limited to emergencies. See Declaration Regarding Inspections,

5

Exhibit K4. The County does not involuntarily administer psychotropic drugs. Id. Instead, it

6

transfers the inmate out of the Jail to a licensed medical health facility for any involuntary

7

administration of psychotropic medication. Id.

8

9

~

13c.; Bates page no. 6727 of

The fourth item dealt with the provision of necessary nutrition and fluids. See Declaration
Regarding Inspections,

~

13d.; Bates page no. 6729 of Exhibit K4. This is with regards to the use

10

of the safety cell. Id. This is based upon one inmate in the safety cell who was on a hunger strike.

11

Id. Although the person was provided with food and fluids, Dr. Cassidy noted that staff does not

12

assure the inmate was ingesting them. Id. Jail Policy C-154 addresses safety cells and subsection
VI.B. states that inmates in safety cells will be provided with water at all times during their
assignment. Id. However, there is nothing in the policy that specifically states that Jail staff watch
inmates in safety cells consume their food or water. Id. The County is considering revision to its
policy. Id.
3.

18

Biannual Inspections by BSCC

Every two years, the California Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC)

19

performs an inspection. See Declaration Regarding Inspections,

20

looks at compliance with Title 15 and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. Id. The

21

BSCC specifically looks at policies, procedures, practices; review documents; performs a physical

22

inspection of the Jail; speaking with inmates and staff; and, evaluates inmate programs and

23

evidence based practices. Id. Generally, BSCC inspections have found no significant issues with

24

the operation of the Jail. Id. Any issues raised in inspection reports are addressed by the Sheriff's

25

Department. Id.

~

2. The inspection specifically

26

The BSCC inspection report for 2010- 2012 noted, "All of the sheriff personnel we spoke

27

with during the inspection were very knowledgeable of the applicable regulations and policies and

28

were professional in their appearance and demeanor." See Declaration Regarding Inspections,~ 3;
{0163763 IDOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE

22

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 29 of 70

1

see also Bates page nos. 3214-3219 of Exhibit 11 to Appendix of Exhibits. With the exception of

2

an issue with regards to conflict between the Inmate Handbook and the Policy Manual, and

3

exceeding the rating capacity on occasion, the Jail was found in compliance with all provisions of

4

Titles 15 and 24. Id. This includes training of correctional officers, evaluation of the Policies and

5

Procedures Manual, classification plans, mentally disordered inmates, administrative segregation,

6

use of safety cells, use of sobering cells, developmentally disabled inmates, exercise and

7

recreation, and evaluation of the physical plant including the specific cells. Id.; Bates page nos.

8

3214-3245 of Exhibit 11.

9

The BSCC inspection report for the 2012-2014 time period was similarly positive. See

10

Declaration Regarding Inspections, , 4; see also Bates page nos. 3246-3259 of Exhibit 12 to

11

Appendix of Exhibits. The 2012-2014 report indicates that out of the 42 standards enumerated in

12

Title 15, the only non-compliance issues found regarded the Jail's discipline plan and grievance

13

procedure. Id.; see also Bates page nos. 3246-3259 of Exhibit 12 to Appendix of Exhibits. The

14

Department remedied these issues by the following inspection and was in compliance with all

~.oo'°'° 15

standards. Id. Out of the 31 standards enumerated in Title 24, the only non-compliance issues

0
0
N

Vl

f,- .~ ~ - '-D
f,- ::lv,ooO

0

CZ)

°'

'St

r--

°' r-:
-~u~~
~

•

<U

-<

-

M

~ ·- E ~ ~

f , - ~ v ....
~v§...l:X:

0 .::: ...

w-< 16

found regarded the rated capacity for dormitories and cells. Id.

c...5~f--r.i..
0
V)

M

CZ)

17

The BSCC inspection report for the 2014 - 2016 time period indicates that the Jail was in

18

compliance with all Title 15 and 24 standards, save for assuring necessary nutrition and fluids are

19

administered to persons placed in a safety cell and that clinical judgments in the Jail are the sole

20

province of the responsible physician, dentist, and psychiatrist or psychologist, respectively. 7 See

21

Declaration Regarding Inspections, , 5; see also Bates page nos. 27051-27076 of Exhibit I3 to

22

Appendix of Exhibits.

23

discussions with staff and inmates confirmed that practices appeared to follow written procedures

24

and were also consistent with regulations." Id. BSCC also noted, "the facility is found to be very

25

clean and orderly." Id. Also, it was noted that there was discussion about the Jail roof top

26

recreation area which was not being used at the time of the inspection. Id. However, it was noted

27

there was going to be modification/updates in order to expand recreation opportunities, and the

BSCC again concluded "our review of applicable documentation and

28
7

This finding was based on the 2015 Environmental Health annual Inspection referenced in section 2, above.

(01637631.DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
23

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 30 of 70

1

establishment of a recreation specialist position. 8 Id.

2

With regard to the noted issues of non-compliance, as noted above, the Jail has

3

investigated said issues with County Health Officer Dr . Joseph Cassidy.

4

Regarding Inspections, ,i 5. With regards to the provision of fluids, the Jail provides necessary

5

fluids. Id. However, policy does not require visual confirmation fluids are ingested.

6

County is considering revision to its policy.

7

professional, that concerned two instances where Dr. Cassidy recommended an exam based on a

8

belief a sexual assault occurred just prior to entering the Jail. Id. When jail staff looked into the

9

matter, it turned out the assaults had occurred a very long time prior to incarceration. Id. As such,

10

See Declaration

Id. The

As to following the direction of a medical

an exam was not necessary. Id. When later advised, Dr. Cassidy agreed with the decision. Id.

11

4.

12

Each year, Yuba County convenes a Grand Jury to look at various governmental functions,

13

one being the operation of the JaiL See Declaration Regarding Inspections, ,i 14. The Yuba County

<')

14

Grand Jury provides a yearly report regarding the conditions and management of the Yuba County

C,:::;,.,o'D'D

15

Jail. Id. The findings over the last 6 years are discussed below.

0
0

N

V'l

f-< -~ ~ - 'D
f-< ::ltr1000

0

C/l

•

°' '<t

°'
-

t-

~ (\) <l'. i--:
-~u~~

u.:J :::: E ;;: ;;:
f-< ~ 11.l • • • •

i:::.:::

11.l

§ W.l
....l

0 -~ ....

~

16

In the year 2010/2011, the Grand Jury issued findings indicating that the Jail staff was

17

well-trained and attentive to the needs of the Jail inmates. It was recommended that the Yuba

18

County Sheriff commend the Jail staff for their dedication and hard work in making the

19

community a safer place. See Bates page nos. 5022-5028 of Exhibit LI to Appendix of Exhibits.

c..::'.;gf--- .....
0
V)
<')

C/l

Grand Jury Reports

20

The 2011/2012 Grand Jury Report concluded that "the Jail operates very efficiently and

21

that Sheriffs Department staff are well trained and serve the residents of Yuba County in an

22

efficient and professional manner." See Bates page nos. 5029-5032 of Exhibit L2 to Appendix of

23

Exhibits.

24

The 2012/2013 Grand Jury Report concluded that the constitutional needs of all inmates

25

were met to include religious, legal, and due process. See Bates page nos. 5033-5036 of Exhibit

26

L3 to Appendix of Exhibits. It further found that the staff is dedicated, well-trained, and

27

professional, but there are positions left unfilled due to budget cuts. Id.

28
8

Both the roof top area has been opened and a recreation specialist has been hired.

{01637631 DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
24

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 31 of 70

0
0
N

f-;

2

page nos. 503 7-5041 of Exhibit L4 to Appendix of Exhibits. It specifically noted that all inmates

3

are provided with necessary treatment from medical staff in a timely manner. Id. There was also a

4

full time drug and alcohol counselor and grievance counselor to meet the needs of inmates. Id.

5

The Grand Jury found that the Yuba Jail was operating efficiently with well-trained staff. Id.

6

The 2014/2015 Grand Jury 9 also addressed the Jail. See Declaration Regarding

7

Inspections, ,I 16; see also Bates page nos. 8012-8026 of Exhibit LS to Appendix of Exhibits. This

8

time, the Grand Jury received a presentation from the U.C. Davis Civil Rights Clinic (Plaintiffs'

9

counsel in this case). Id. U.C. Davis provided a variety of information, including information

10

regarding the 1978 Consent Decree. See id., Bates page nos. 8015-8016. The Grand Jury issued

11

numerous findings which parrot many of the claims being made in Plaintiffs' instant motion. See

12

id., Bates page nos. 8022-8025.
Yuba County Sheriffs Department responded to the 2014/2015 Grand Jury Report as it

14

relates to the Jail. See Declaration Regarding Inspections, ,I,I 16-17; see also Exhibit M to

15

Appendix of Exhibits. The response is dated June 16, 2015 to the Honorable Julia Scroggins. Id.

.:: ......... <t'.

16

It begins with pointing out inaccuracies contained in the body of the report, in addition to the

0 Cll
tr,

17

factual errors and inaccuracies in the Findings and Recommendations. See Bates page nos. 8382-

18

83 83 of Exhibit M to Appendix of Exhibits. The Sheriffs Department then addressed each of the

19

findings, pointing out where there is disagreement as to the conclusions. See id Bates page nos.

20

8384-8390; see also Declaration Regarding Inspections at ~17-17g. The Sheriffs Department also

21

9

'°

Cll•

°' ""'"
-

r--

M

~~<!'.~~
-<t'.Uo,o,

~

The 2013/2014 Grand Jury similarly found the Jail to be operating appropriately. See Bates

13

tr,

<IJ N

E-< .-:::
- 00
: l t00
r,0

0

1

cs~~

w.l ·-

C

o, o,

f-;~<IJ . . . .

~<1)§..JX

2;§ge-w..
M

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiffs refer to the Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report 2014-2015 ("2014-2015 GJ Report") in its Motion.
F.R.E., Rule 803 (8)C provides for an exception to the hearsay rule for public investigatory reports. However, that
exception requires the sources of information or other circumstances to indicate "trustworthiness." Defendant submits
that the 2014-2015 GJ report should be excluded as untrustworthy.
Here, the 2014-2015 GJ Report indicates that source of the information was "interviews, tours and research."
Significantly, the Grand Jury was given a "presentation by UC Davis Civil Rights Clinic" who served as counsel for
Plaintiffs in the instant case. As a source of information, such was inherently biased one-sided and potentially
inaccurate, and thus should not be considered trustworthy for purposes of determining admissibility. See Btesh v.
City of Maitland, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83464, *57-58 (M.D. Fla. July 28, 2011) (excluding grand jury where the
State of Florida had presented information in a non-adversarial proceeding, potentially one-sided and inaccurate, and
Defendant had no opportunity to present argument or evidence to the grand jury or to challenge the evidence
presented during the proceeding). Moreover, there is no information who conducted the "research", whether such
person(s) had the requisite knowledge or expertise to properly apply the sources. Lastly, it is not clear upon what
source the Grand Jury relied to support any particular conclusion. Accordingly, it should be considered
untrustworthy.
{0163763 I.DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
25

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 32 of 70

pointed out its frustration that the Grand Jury conducted its investigation, yet did not follow-up
2

with the Sheriffs Department to ask questions regarding its findings. Instead, they kept secret

3

their findings, many of which were erroneous, and simply printed them in their final report. See

4

id., Bates page no. 8394.

5

The 2015/2016 Grand Jury also evaluated the Jail. See Declaration Regarding Inspections,

6

1 18;

7

extraordinary nature of prior years' Grand Jury report, the 2015/2016 Grand Jury specifically did

8

two things: (1) reviewed the Findings and Recommendations of the prior Grand Jury; and (2)

9

conducted a new inspection of the Yuba County Jail. See Bates page nos. 8114-813 7 of Exhibit L6

10

to Appendix of Exhibits. The Grand Jury determined that all but two of the recommendations

11

were acted on through the hiring of additional personnel, providing additional training, adjusting

12

procedure, and obtaining a $20 million grant through SB863. Id., Bates page nos. 8115. With

13

regards to mental health services, SYMH verified that the full time Crisis Counselor had the

14

required education necessary for the position. Id., Bates page no. 8124. The Grand Jury found that

~os:£:£ 15

inmates have 24 hour access for emergency psychiatric care and around 100 hours a week for non-

0
0
N

.,-,

E- .~ ~ - 'Ci
E- ::i.,-,ooo
Q(/JO\s::f"t'-

°' r--:
--<u~~
~

•

,;j

~

-

M

°' °'

W-l ·- c:: ....
f-~OJ

~1:E..JX

0 ·- ~

(..Ll

Cl.

f- ""'

::50
.,..,
M

~

(I;

~

see also Bates page nos. 8114-813 7 of Exhibit L6 to Appendix of Exhibits. Due to the

16

emergency mental health treatment/counseling. Id. The Grand Jury also looked at the use of safety

17

cells. Id., Bates page no. 8125. It was noted that placement in safety cells is only with the approval

18

of the facility administrator, the watch commander, or the physician. Id. The inmates are checked

19

every 15 minutes and a medical assessment is completed within 12 hours of placement. Id. A

20

mental opinion is secured within 24 hours. Id. If an inmate remains in a cell after the first medical

21

assessment, he or she is medically checked every 24 hours at a minimum. Id. It is noted that

22

arrestees are regularly taken to SYMH prior to booking for evaluation to ensure that they are fit

23

for incarceration. Id. If deemed unfit, a mental health hold is placed and he or she may be taken to

24

Rideout Hospital. Id.

25

psychiatric medications for 30 days from an inmate who comes to the Jail under the influence of

26

an illegal substance. Id., Bates page no. 8126.

27

psychiatrist is to continue the arrestee on their medications, and will only deviate and withhold

28

medications if extenuating circumstances exist. Id.

The Grand Jury also addressed the claimed blanket policy of withholding

It is pointed out that current policy of the

{01637631 DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE

26

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 33 of 70

1

!:
0

0
0
N

II)

<l)

'°

N

The 2015/2016 Grand Jury issued three findings.

See Bates page nos. 8132-8133 of

2

Exhibit L6 to Appendix of Exhibits. The first finding noted that the Yuba County Jail had showed

3

considerable improvement in the mental healthcare being provided to inmates. Id., Bates page no.

4

8132. As to finding #2, it is noted that a fulltime Family Nurse Practitioner has been retained

5

(which has qualifications above an RN). Id., Bates page no. 8133. Also, one of the current LVNs

6

recently passed the RN course and has applied for an interim permit and expects to receive that

7

permit so that she may act as an RN. Id.

8

The Grand Jury recommended the funding and hiring of a fulltime psychiatrist and the

9

funding and hiring of a fulltime medical doctor. Id., Bates page no. 8134. The Yuba County

10

Sheriffs Department issued its response to the Grand Jury report. See Exhibit S to Appendix of

11

Exhibits. With regard to the hiring of a full time psychiatrist, the Sheriffs Department responded

12

that it was not warranted, nor was it reasonable. Id., Bates page no. 8577. There was no evidence

13

that a fulltime psychiatrist was necessary. Id. The same was true with regards to a fulltime medical

.!=
00 ::ll()Q00
Cf]

"

°' s:t r- 14 professional. Id. Based upon the Sheriffs Department internal and external reviews, there was not
-

M

~ <U<!'.O\r-:

~-<u~~
~
0 "' "'

>-.
w ..i;::c;;;:

f-,~<l)

15

~ ~ E ...l X 16
~ w <!'.
o..:§~f-w..

0 ·0

II)

M

Cf]

a need for a fulltime position. Id.

....

D.

Policies

17

The Jail maintains specific policies and procedures, all which comply with applicable state

18

and national standards. See Declaration of Kathryn Wild, ,i,i 6-12, and Report attached thereto; see

19

also Declaration of Dr. Jason Roof,

20

Jim Sida, ,i~ 6a-h, and Report attached thereto. Specifically, the Jail maintains a Jail Manual,

21

which contains the general policies and procedures. See Declaration Regarding Policies,

22

Procedures, and Forms, ,i 5; see also Exhibit C to Appendix of Exhibits. It also maintains a set of

23

policies regarding the provision of medical services. See Declaration Regarding Policies,

24

Procedures, and Forms, ,i 6; see also Exhibit D to Appendix of Exhibits. Sutter-Yuba Behavioral

25

Health, who provides the mental health services, has its own specific policies and procedures

26

regarding the provision of its services. See Declaration Regarding Policies, Procedures, and

27

Forms, ,i 7; see also Declaration Regarding Mental Health Services, ,i 19; see also Exhibit E to

28

Appendix of Exhibits.

,ii 4a-4k, and Report attached thereto; see also Declaration of

{01637631.DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
27

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 34 of 70

1

Plaintiffs cite to no policies or procedures that are contrary to, or do not meet the

2

requirements of, the Consent Decree. Nor do Plaintiffs point to any policy that is in violation of

3

Title 15. Plaintiffs simply opine, based on their experts, certain policies should be changed. The

4

following is a summary of the policies referenced by Plaintiffs, and Defendants' response.

5

0
0
Nor,

1.

Intake Process (YCJ Manual Order Nos. B-201, C155, D201, D401, and

6

B202; SYBH Policy 11-015 and 08-23, Exhibits C and E to Appendix of Exhibits.) Primarily,

7

Plaintiffs argue Correctional Officers should not be used to perform intake screening. Such is

8

misplaced. There is no standard which precludes the use of a Correctional Officer to do intake. In

9

fact, applicable standards allow it. See Title 15, § 1207. Plaintiffs seem to conflate "screening"

10

with "diagnosis." Use of Correctional Officers to perform intake is appropriate. See Declaration

11

of Kathryn Wild, 1 7; see also Declaration of Dr. Jason Roof, 1 4c; see also Declaration of Jim

12

Sida, 16a.

13

Additionally, Plaintiffs seem to suggest that the intake form used by the Jail is insufficient.

r-,

14

However, that form is appropriate to elicit necessary information to make decisions regarding the

-<i::
O;O:
0:::
o· '-0 '-0

15

inmate, including what physical or mental conditions may exist that required further assessment.

...i X 16
[J.J <i::
o..;§~E-c.,.

Anyone that identifies having such are seen by healthcare staff. If there are any questions, on-site

f-- .~ ~ - '-0
f-- ::,,,-,coo

0

C/l

°' s:t

•
M
u v..,i::o-:r-:
VJ ;;. ;,...) N N

o

tJ..l ·- 'E 0: 0:
f--~v ....

CC:~ E
0 ·- E:

.,.,

0

M

C/l

17

or on-call medical staff are available. If necessary, the person is transported to the hospital for

18

clearance before admission into the Jail. See Declaration of Kathryn Wild, 1 6c; see also

19

Declaration of Dr. Jason Roof, 1 4c; see also Declaration of Jim Sida, 1 6a.

20

2.

Face-to-face assessment of those using mental health.

(Plaintiffs reference

21

CMS-001-310, which has been renumbered YCJ Manual Order A22, Exhibit C to Appendix of

22

Exhibits.) Face-to-face assessment of those with mental health needs is not required, nor does it

23

create a risk of harm to the inmates. Use of telepsychiatry is an appropriate and recognized tool.

24

See Declaration of Dr. Jason Roof, 1 4e.

25

3.

Crisis evaluation, emergency services, and suicide assessment. (SYBH 11-029,

26

08-23 and YCJ Manual Order D-401 and C-1151, Exhibits E and C to Appendix of Exhibits.)

27

Generally, Plaintiffs criticize the use of Crisis Counselors and suicide assessment tools used. The

28

use of Crisis Counselors is appropriate and does not create an undue risk of harm to the inmates.
{01637631 DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE

28

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 35 of 70

1

See Declaration of Dr. Jason Roof, 1 4d. The Jail suicide policies and assessment tools are

2

appropriate. Id., 14j; see also Declaration of Kathryn Wild, 18; see also Declaration of Jim Sida, 1

3

6c.

4

0
0

N
£,- .~
f-,

0

V'l

&J - \.0
::lV)000

°'

4.

Safety Cells. (YCJ Manual Order C-154, Exhibit C to Appendix of Exhibits.)

5

Plaintiffs argue that the policy is inadequate as persons can be held for more than 24 hours. The

6

County policy states that medical assessment will be made within 12 hours. Thereafter, a person

7

must be assessed every 24 hours for retention in a safety cell. A mental health evaluation must be

8

done within 24 hours of placement.

9

evaluations to be done in conjunction with placement in safety cells. Regardless, safety cell policy

10

is appropriate. See Declaration of Kathryn Wild, 19; see also Declaration of Dr. Jason Roof, 1 4f.

11

Placement in safety cells is a classification decision, which is based upon the safety needs of the

12

inmate and the Jail.

13

5.

It should be noted that it is routine for mental health

Medical isolation and assignment to administrative segregation. (YCJ Manual

r-

14

Order D-211, C 153, Exhibit C to Appendix of Exhibits.) Plaintiffs generally claim that policies

0::: 0 §~ ~

15

regarding medical isolation or assignment to administrative segregation as it relates to those with

O::: ~ E ...i X 16
oc..;§~E-r.i...
·- e µJ-<

mental illness are not appropriate. However, it is appropriate to consider a person's mental

Cll

'<T

°' r--:
-<u~~
~

•

-

M

o.i <!'.

W-1
t::
f - ,·~O

0 Cll
V)
M

°' °'

....

17

condition in making housing decisions. Those decisions are made based upon what is best for the

18

inmate, and others. Those in administrative segregation are allowed the same privileges as other

19

inmates, unless a safety concern exists which would preclude such. See Declaration Regarding

20

Types and Uses of Cells, 19; see also Order C-153 - Assignment to Administrative Segregation,

21

Bates page nos. 9117-9118 of Exhibit C to Appendix of Exhibits. The Jail classification and

22

assignment to administrative segregation as it relates to those with mental illness are appropriate

23

and necessary to balance the needs of the institution with those of the inmates. See Declaration of

24· Dr. Jason Roof, 14g.
25

6.

Prescription medication policies. (YCJ Manual Order D-215; A-3 and SYBH 17-

26

039, Exhibits C and E to Appendix of Exhibits.)

Generally, Plaintiffs suggest that the Jail

27

prescription medication policies are inadequate, but without much in the way of specifics. What

28

criticisms do exist seem to take away discretionary decisions by healthcare professionals (i.e.,
{01637631 DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE

29

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 36 of 70

1

establishing time frames within which physicians or mental health are required to follow-up).

2

County policies specifically address prescription medications, and allow for the continuation of

3

community prescribed prescription medication. Those policies and practices are appropriate and

4

within standards. See Declaration of Kathryn Wild, ~ 11 a; see also Declaration of Dr. Jason Roof,

5

~

4h.

7.

6

Alcohol/Drug policies, including withdrawal. (YCJ Manual Order D-205, M-33,

7

and M-4, Exhibit C to Appendix of Exhibits.) Plaintiffs' criticism seems to be directed more at

8

the provision of services as opposed to the specific policies (i.e., claims the Jail fails to provide

9

inmates in withdrawal with medical assistance they need). Regardless, the County has well-

IO

established policies and protocols with regards to addressing alcohol and drug use, and related

11

withdrawals.

12

Declaration of Kathryn Wild, ,~ 6c, 11 b; see also Declaration of Dr. Jason Roof, ,~ 4c, 4i.

They have clear policies and assessment tools that are within standards. See

Alcohol and drug issues, including withdrawal, are assessed at intake and ·continually throughout
incarceration. Id. Jail staff uses industry standard assessment tools to assess alcohol and drug
withdrawal. Id.

8.

Emergency care. (CMS 001-027 [now YCJ Order Manual No. A-18], and 001-

025 [now YCJ Manual Order No. A-17], Exhibit C to Appendix of Exhibits.) Plaintiffs seem to
18

suggest that emergency care available to inmates is deficient. However, the care available to those

19

inmates is the same as available to those in the community. Inmates in need of emergency care

20

are transferred to Rideout Hospital and/or Sutter-Yuba Behavioral Health, as may be needed.

21

Such policies and practices are appropriate. See Declaration of Kathryn Wild, ~,; 6f, 6j, 12; see

22

also Declaration of Dr. Jason Roof,~~ 4b, 4g.

23

E.

24

Inmate Complaints are Insufficient
Plaintiffs seemingly rely on several inmate declarations and other records.

Such is

25

improper. As explained above, administrative exhaustion is required, which has not occurred.

26

Regardless, an audit of those declarations/documents demonstrate the deficiencies in these

27

complaints, and the problem relying on such.

28

Ill
{01637631.DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
30

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 37 of 70

0
0
N

r-' <U

V"l

N

1

As pointed out in the Report of Kathryn Wild, the inmate complaints referred to were

2

deficient, contrary to claims, or otherwise did not support the assertions made. See Report of

3

Kathryn Wild, pages 11-13, attached to Declaration of Kathryn Wild. Dr. Roof came to the same

4

conclusions regarding one of the inmates referenced. See Report of Dr. Jason Roof, pages 10-12,

5

attached to Declaration of Jason Roof. As is typical, there is always more to the story. Based on

6

a review of several inmate complaints, there is significant concern over the reliability of these

7

claims. See Declaration Regarding Inmate Complaints, ,i,i 3-9.

8

VII.

9

DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC ISSUES RAISED BY PLAINTIFFS

10

The following summarizes the specific claims made by Plaintiffs and the Defendants'

11

response thereto. As outlined, there is no evidence of "deliberate indifference." There is nothing

12

to suggest the County knew of and consciously disregarded a substantial risk of harm to the

13

Plaintiffs. There is no underlying constitutional violation. There is certainly no County policy

14

that has caused a constitutional injury. A difference in opinion as to how the Jail should be

f-< .~
00 '-D
;::lv-,ooO

0

~

Cl]

°'

'ST r--

•
M
,.;<o;r--:

-~u~~ 15

i::.:::;,.,o'-D'-D
~ .~ C: ~ ~

f-<~<U., ..
i::,:::~E-l:X:
0 ·- ~ W-l <
A.;:S~f-r.i...
0
V)

Cl]

16
17

M

operated does not amount to a constitutional claim.
A.

Medical and Mental Health Issues
1.

18

Medical and Mental Health Intake Requirements (Motion pp. 9:22 - 15:16)
a.

Plaintiffs' Claims

19

Plaintiffs claim the Jail's intake and booking process 1s constitutionally deficient.

20

Primarily, their assertion is based on the opinion of their expert, Dr. Pablo Stewart who has

21

declared that the County's intake and booking process creates an excessive risk of harm to

22

prisoners who enter the Jail with chronic conditions, serious mental illness, substance abuse

23

disorder, and/or suicidal ideations. Motion, 10:15-19; Stewart Declaration,,~ 27-80. Specifically,

24

it is the opinion of Dr. Stewart that a Corrections Officer should not handle the intake process.

25

Instead, that should be handled by a medical professional. Motion, 11 :3-15.

26

Plaintiffs also contend the Jail's intake/booking process is deficient in that it fails to use

27

any specific mental health screening forms or formal suicide risk assessment tools. Instead, the

28

Jail uses general intake and booking forms. Motion, 11: 16-24; Stewart Deel., ,i,i 53- 55 and 58.
{01637631.DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
31

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 38 of 70

1
2

Next plaintiffs argue the Jail fails to refer and conduct timely medical and mental health
evaluations. Motion, 11 :24-26.

3

Lastly, it is asserted the Jail's intake and booking process fails to illicit an accurate

4

exchange of information due to restricted space and lack of confidentiality in which the screenings

5

take place. Motion, 12:8-10.

6

f-<
f-<

0
0
NI(")
IU N
.<:::
::I 00
I(") 00
0
IZl
-st r--

b.

Defendants' Response

7

Plaintiffs are incorrect in all of their assertions. The Jail follows the terms of the Consent

8

Decree, and applicable standards, and maintains policies, practices and procedures specific to the

9

issues raised.

10

Plaintiffs cite to sec. V.A. and C. of the Consent Decree. Motion, 10:5-13. Yet, they do

11

not identify any specific provision that is not being followed regarding the intake process. Instead,

12

they want additional obligations (i.e., to have the screening done by a healthcare professional) and

13

generally argue the booking process creates an excessive risk of harm.

'°

°'
14
The Consent Decree does not require the use of a medical professional during intake. In
--<u&!S! 15 fact, the Consent Decree specifically states that "[u]pon arrival of each new arrestee, the booking
ei:::os::::::
"1-l ·°' °'
f-<
0 •
M
~,.;<1'.o-:r-:
~

i::
I!)

0::: ~ E

0 ·- !':

••••

...l
u.l

X

<1'.
o..;§gE--<µ..
0 IZl
I(")

16

officer will ask a series of medical questions and observe the physical and mental condition of the

17

arrestee in order to complete the Booking Health Form." See Exhibit B to Appendix of Exhibits,

18

p.12, para V.C. The County complies with this provision. See Declaration Regarding Provisions

19

of Consent Decree, ,5a. New arrestees are interviewed by the Correction Officer. See id.; see also

20

Order B-201, Bates page nos. 9024-9027 of Exhibit C to Appendix of Exhibits. A series of

21

questions, identified on the intake form are asked and then documented. See Declaration

22

Regarding Provisions of Consent Decree, ,5a. The Correction Officer also observes the physical

23

and mental condition of the arrestee and notes those observations on the intake form. Id. The form

24

is to be transmitted to the nurse on the same day or on the subsequent day. Id. If there is any

25

question regarding the arrestee's physical or me1;1tal health, he/she is sent to Rideout or SYBH, and

26

that arrestee is not admitted into the Jail until clear. See id., ,5b; see also Exhibit B to Appendix of

27

Exhibits, p.12, para V.C.

28

I II

M

{01637631.DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
32

 ~--

---

--------------------------,

Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 39 of 70

0
0
N

1

State standards do not reqmre medical personnel to be used at the intake stage.

2

Specifically, Title 15 sec. 1207 allows intake screening to be completed by trained facility staff or

3

licensed health personnel. Also, it is important to note that Plaintiffs have cited to no law that

4

requires a healthcare professional to conduct intake.

5

The Jail has specific policies regarding intake. Those are found in Order B-201.

6

Declaration Regarding Provisions of Consent Decree, ,r5a.; see also Bates page nos. 9024-9027 of

7

Exhibit C to Appendix of Exhibits. See also SYBH # 11-030 regarding Crisis Assessment of

8

Arrested Individuals, attached to Exhibit E of the Appendix of Exhibits. Those procedures are

9

appropriate and consistent with applicable standards. See Declaration of Kathryn Wild, ,r 7; see

10

also Declaration of Dr. Jason Roof, ,r 4c; see also Declaration of Jim Sida, ,r 6a. In addition,

11

having trained Correctional Officers conduct the intake screening, including asking questions

12

about medical and mental health issues, does not constitute any undue risk to the inmate. Id.

13

Plaintiffs are wrong about the use of a screening form. The Yuba County Jail does use a

. °' °'-"St ""r-- 14

screening form which has specific questions about the person's mental and physical health. See

15

Exhibits A and Fl to Appendix of Exhibits. Corrections Officers are trained on this use of that

i::,:: ~ E ...i ~ 16
o11.;_i
·a e;;lE-W..
w.i-<

form, and are knowledgeable about the type of information to elicit, and what to do if there are any

V)

'°

f--<
&:l f--< -~
:lV)000

0 (/)

u
,; -< i-:
Cll;,.VNN

--<

~~

"oB~~
µ.l
f--< ·- c:: °' °'
~

0
V)

0)

(/)

....

17

questions about the arrestee physical or mental health to be able to enter the Jail. See Declaration

18

Regarding Operation of the Yuba County Jail, ,r 15; see also Declaration of Kathryn Wild, ,r 7.

19

The form itself complies with applicable standards. See Declaration of Jim Sida, ,r 6a.

""

20

Plaintiffs' argument conflates "screening" and "diagnosis." The intake process exists to

21

screen the inmates, not diagnose them. At the Yuba jail, trained Corrections Officers screen the

22

arrestee. See Declaration Regarding Provisions of Consent Decree, ,r5a. See also Declaration

23

Regarding Operation of the Yuba County Jail, ,r 15 and Declaration Regarding Training,

24

form is used to guide the questioning. See Exhibits A and Fl to Appendix of Exhibits. If there are

25

any questions about the arrestee's physical or mental health, the appropriate health care personnel

26

is called to do an assessment. See Declaration Regarding Provisions of Consent Decree, ,r 5a and

27

Order B-201, Bates Nos. 9025 -9027 of Exhibit C to the Appendix of Exhibits. If the appropriate

28

health care personnel is not on duty at the time of intake, the Corrections Officers can contact on{01637631.DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
33

,r~ 4-6. A

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 40 of 70

1

call medical or mental health staff, which are available 24 hours a day, 7 days per week. Id. If

2 those persons do not believe the arrestee's physical or mental health is such they are able to enter
3

the Jail, the arrestee is refused entry into the Jail until cleared by a medical personnel. Id., ,i Sb. In

4

such cases, the arrestee is transported to either Rideout Hospital or Sutter-Yuba Behavioral Health

5

or treatment. Id.

6

and do not constitute an undue risk to inmates. See Declaration of Kathryn Wild,

7

Declaration of Dr. Jason Roof, ,i 4c; see also Declaration of Jim Sida, ,i 6a.

As noted above, these policies and practices comply with applicable standards
~

7; see also

8

It should be noted the Jail has updated its Intake Form. See Declaration Regarding

9

Operation of the Yuba County Jail, ,i 5; see also Exhibit A to Appendix of Exhibits. The new form

10

expands on the questions regarding medical/mental health issues. Id. The officers have been

11

trained by medical and mental health staff on the use of that form. Id.

12

It should also be noted there is a classification assessment by a trained Classification
Officer. See Declaration Regarding Operation of the Yuba County Jail, ,i 18; see also Order C-

l O1, Bates page nos. 9099-9104 of Exhibit C to Appendix of Exhibits. During that process, the
Classification Officer speaks with the inmate and again addresses physical/mental issues. Id. This
provides another level of assessment.
Plaintiffs are incorrect in their assertion that the Jail does not refer and conduct timely
18

medical and mental health evaluations. The Consent Decree states that a person shall not be

19

accepted if he/she is "unconscious, unable to walk by himself or herself, in need of obvious

20

medical attention, or in need of immediate mental health services. In these situations or if it is not

21

obvious but there is a question as to the physical or mental state of the arrestee, the arresting

22

officer must transport the arrestee to either Rideout ... or in the instances of mental illness, to

23

[Sutter-Yuba Behavioral Health]. Only after the examining physician certifies that the new

24

arrestee is fit for incarceration may the arrestee be incarcerated." See Exhibit B to Appendix of

25

Exhibits, p.13, para V.C.

26

requires medical attention, that person must be seen at the next sick call. Id. Any arrestee found to

27

have a communicable disease must be seen at the next sick call. Id. Arrestees not found to have

28

any medical conditions are to be seen for the "Routine Reception Health Assessment" (which

If the medical personnel find the person fit for incarceration, but

{01637631.DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
34

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 41 of 70

1

includes a mental health assessment) within 14 days of incarceration. Id., p.14, para. V.D. Yuba's

2

policies comport with the requirements of the Consent Decree.

3

Provisions of Consent Decree,

4

C to Appendix of Exhibits; see also Orders C-101, C-152, C-153, C-154, C-155, Bates page nos.

5

9099-9104 and 9116-9125, of Exhibit C to Appendix of Exhibits. See Declaration of Kathryn

6

Wild,

7

Jim Sida, ~ 6a.

Sc; see also Order B-201, Bates page nos. 9025, 9027 of Exhibit

6c, 6d, 6e; see also Declaration of Dr. Jason Roof,

~

4a, 4c, 4i; see also Declaration of

8

Plaintiffs are similarly incorrect in their assertion regarding confidentiality. Intake occurs

9

in a closed room. See Declaration Regarding Operation of the Yuba County Jail,~ 16. The only

10

person in that room are the arrestee, the Corrections Officer doing the intake and, if necessary, the

11

arresting officer. Id. There is complete and utter privacy at the intake stage.

12
0
0
N"'

~~

~

See Declaration Regarding

The intake procedures of Yuba County are appropriate, within standards, and do not create
~

13

an undue risk of harm to those with mental health issues. See Declaration of Kathryn Wild,

14

see also Declaration of Dr. Jason Roof, ,i 4c; see also Declaration of Jim Sida, ,i 6a. The County of

15
~oo"°"°
~ ·- C 0::;:
E~
~ v § ....l X
0 .t .... W..l <t: 16

Yuba maintains appropriate policies regarding the identification, assessment, and treatment of

E- -~ &3 - \0
f-;::lll")Q00
QUJO\s:j-t'-

°' r-,:
-,<U~~
•

~ v <t:
Q.)

0..

:5
0
I/")

~

UJ

-

M

7;

••••

[-

those with mental health issues. Id.

w..

17
18

Suicide Prevention and Emergency Response provisions (Mot pp. 15:17 25:14)

19

a.

M

20
21

2.

Plaintiffs' claims

Plaintiffs assert three specific claims regarding suicide prevention and emergency
response. Each are discussed below.

1)

22

Claim No. 1- Suicide Hazards

23

Plaintiffs assert the "old jail" is rife with suicide hazards, including access to exposed

24

beams, metal bars and fixtures that can be used to attempt suicide. In the "new jail", there are also

25

"rampant suicide hazards." For example, it is argued there is a lack of accountability regarding

26

issuance of razor blades, the availability of plastic cutlery, and access to toxic chemical cleaning

27

solutions. Motion, 16:16-25, Stewart Deel. ,i,i 133, 143; Phil Stanley Deel. ,i,i44-46. It is further

28

claimed, there are blind spots particularly in the administrative segregation and medical cells.
{0163763LDOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
35

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 42 of 70

1

Motion, 16:25-27; Stewart Deel.

2

To support their contention, Plaintiffs cite to individuals who they claim have managed to

3

commit significant acts of harm. Motion, 16:28-17:5; Stewart Deel. ,i,i 129, 145-147. In the last

4

two years, it is asserted "multiple class members" 10 have attempted to hang themselves from

5

exposed beams in the shower and bathroom areas of H Tank of the old jail. Motion, 17:12-17;

6

Stewart Dec. ~~134-135; Stark Deel. ,r~14, 17, 29, 35; Exhibits L, 0, PAA, and GG; Stanley Deel.

7

,i 46. It is claimed there have been at least 45 suicide attempts at the Jail in the last 30 months.

8

Motion, 17:20-21; Stark Deel. ,i29.

9

Lastly, it is claimed Defendants' system of indirect supervision of prisoners throughout the

10

old jail continues to cause delay in emergency response as it takes several minutes for deputies to

11

travel from the new jail to the old jail. Motion, 17:22-24; Stewart Deel., ,i 168.

12
0
0
N

ff- -~
:l

0

Cl)
"

<r,

&l
<r, 00

'°

°' s:t r-

0

M

~~<t'.°'r--:

-<u~~
CGo§:£;£
a°'....°'
t3 -~ ~ ~ ~
o...:§~f-w..
'f-.L.l ·;;;
....

0
lr,

2)

13

15

Claim 2 - Risk of suicide by placing plaintiffs with mental
illnesses in administrative segregation.

Plaintiffs claim the administrative segregation units (described as A-pod for men, S-Tank

14

for women and M-cells) are dangerous for prisoners with mental illness. Motion, 18: 16-17.

i::

Cl)

,ir 141, 144; Exhibits Q, R, KKK; Grunfeld Deel. ,i 82.

16

Plaintiffs acknowledge that the County revised its policy of requiring that all individuals

17

with mental illness be segregated. The revised policy states that an individual's developmental

18

disability or mental illness is an explicit factor that should be considered when identifying

19

housing.

20

individuals with mental illness and developmental disabilities. Motion, 20:8-19; Grunfeld Deel.,

21

,i, 58, 69, 72; Exhibits MM, WW, AAA.

M

However, Plaintiffs claim that other policies call for mandatory segregation of

22

Plaintiffs also claim Defendants failed to engage in practices known to reduce the risk

23

created by administrative segregation such as providing adequate structured and unstructured out-

24

of-cell time and utilizing a suicide risk assessment tool. Motion, 21 :8-15; Stewart Deel. ,i,i52,

25

107, 110; Stanley Deel. ,i42.

26

Ill

27

Ill

28
10

There are only two identified.

{01637631 DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
36

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 43 of 70

1

0
0
N

r' OJ
r' .~
::l

0 (/]•

2i

<r"l

N

3)

Claim 3 - Placing Prisoners in Isolation Cells

2

Plaintiffs criticize what they call "isolation cells." This phrase is misnomer, used by

3

Plaintiffs to suggest some form of punitive use. The cells at issue are safety cells - used for the

4

purposes of protecting the inmate and other persons, not for punitive purposes.

5

Plaintiffs argue that the use of safety cells increase the risk of suicide in two ways. First,

6

the conditions increase the inmates "suicidality". Second, their use increase the likelihood that a

7

suicidal inmate will not report feelings of suicide in order to avoid being placed in the cell in the

8

first place, or to gain release from it. Motion, 23:2-14.

9

Plaintiffs argue the safety cell policy is inadequate. It is asserted the safety cell policy

10

permits a suicidal prisoner to be kept for up to 24 hours without any evaluation by mental health

11

staff and up to 12 hours without medical assessment. Motion, 23:25-24:3. Plaintiffs criticize the

12

Jail's safety cell policy as it does not specify what level provider is authorized to provide any

13

mental health evaluation or treatment or retention in a safety cell; when such evaluations are

00 ~
<r"l 00 0

°' ""'" r-- 14 eventually provided, it does not specify whether evaluations must be in person or can be
-

M

o.i<i:;0-:~

--<u~~
~os::e;:::

15

conducted over the phone. The focus of the criticism seem to be the assertion "unlicensed crisis

~O)E....i:x:

16

counselors", without direct supervision are frequently given the authority to recommend

17

placement or removal from safety cells. Motion, 24:4-12; Stark Deel.; Exhibit EE. Plaintiffs

18

further criticize the jail's safety cell policy by claiming it does not direct mental health staff to

19

offer any form of mental health treatment to individuals being held in the safety cells, despite the

20

fact that prisoners held in such cells are often in the greatest degree of crisis. Motion, 24:13-18;

21

Stewart Dec. i[l 6.

22

b.

W.J ·-

C Os Os
r<~OJ . . . .

o
·a r:: ""' <t:
O..;..)gf-w..
0
.,.,
M

(/]

Defendants' Response

23

Plaintiffs' arguments are based on the general statements of their expert regarding the risk

24

of suicide being high at local jails. Motion, 15: 19-22. Even if true, that risk has not been present

25

at the Yuba County Jail. See Declaration Regarding Operation of the Yuba County Jail,

26

also Declaration of Kathryn Wild,

27

Defendants agree suicide risks exist for inmates, there have been no completed suicides in a

28

minimum of the last 10 years. Id. Such demonstrates jail staff is aware of and properly address

,r

8; see also Declaration of Jim Sida,

{01637631.DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
37

,r

,r 4; see

6c. Although the

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 44 of 70

1

0
0

N V"l

E-- .~ &:l - '°
f-.::SV"looo

QCllO'S'Sl"t-

ii

"

-

M

2

Again, Plaintiffs generally cite to provisions of Consent Decree which address mental

3

health, including emergency services. Motion, 16:4-13, citing Consent Decree V. G., J., and R.

4

However, they do not point to any specific provision that has been violated. The County complies

5

with all of the referenced Consent Decree provisions. See Declaration Regarding Provisions of

6

Consent Decree, ~ 11 d.

7

The Jail maintains specific policies and practices regarding suicide risk identification and

8

prevention. See Order C-101, C-154, and C-1151, Bates page nos. 9099-9104, 9119-9121, and

9

9184-9190 of Exhibit C to Appendix of Exhibits; see also SYBH Policy & Procedure No. 08-023,

10

Suicide Risk Assessment Protocol, Bates page nos. 0377-0378 of Exhibit E; see also Declaration

11

Regarding Training, ~~8, 9. Specific forms are used to address the issue, including a "Suicide Risk

12

Assessment Worksheet," as well as Mental Health Suicide Risk Assessment to assess an inmate's

13

likelihood of attempting suicide. See Exhibits RI and R3. Those who are at risk to themselves or

14

others are placed in a safety cell or transported to the appropriate facility. See Order C-154, Bates

15

page nos. 9119-9121 of Exhibit C to Appendix of Exhibits; see also Declaration of Dr. Jason

16

Roof,~ 4j.

o.!<(O\r--:

--<u~~
~>--.o'°'°

C ~ 0::
....
~ (I) E ...:i ~
.~
e
w
0o...;§~E-w..

suicide risks.

tJJ .t:!

f-,<~(I)

0
V)

M

C/l

17

Staff are trained on the subject. See Declaration Regarding Training,

ir, 6-9. For example,

18

Corrections Officers receive formal training in suicide prevention, in addition to the Mental Health

19

First Aid Program.

20

beginning of each shift. Id., , 9. During some of these briefings, Mental Health Staff provide

21

training on mental health first aid and suicide prevention. Id.

22

Id.,

~

8. Further, Correctional officers have daily briefings before the

The Jail's policies regarding suicide risk identification and prevention are appropriate and

23

are within applicable standards. See Declaration of Kathryn Wild,

24

Jason Roof,, 4j; see also Declaration of Jim Side,, 6c. Those policies and practices do not create

25

an undue risk of harm to inmates. See Declaration of Dr. Jason Roof,, 4j.

26
27
28

1)

~

8; see also Declaration of Dr.

Claim 1 - Suicide Hazards

There are no provisions in the Consent Decree that address what standards the Jail is to
apply for prevention of suicide hazards. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion should be denied.
{0163763 l.DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
38

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 45 of 70

Insofar as Plaintiffs claim there were two attempted suicides, neither can point to any

0
0
N

V)

E- -~ &l - 'D
f-:::,.,..000
QCl'.l0-"'1"t'•
M
U.;<o-;r-,:

VJ

2

violation of the Consent Decree that resulted in the attempts. Further, any attempt to raise

3

individual claims without exhaustion of the PLRA would be inappropriate.

4

Regardless, the exaggerated and misconceived claims regarding suicides, including suicide

5

attempts, at the Jail reveal the lack of merit of the claims asserted. Throughout their Motion,

6

relying on their experts, Plaintiffs state there is an extraordinary suicide risk at the Yuba Jail due to

7

its policies and practices, yet cite to no evidence to support that claim. First, there have been no

8

suicides in the Jail in a minimum of the last 10 years. See Declaration Regarding Operation of the

9

Yuba County Jail,

~

4. Second, acts of self-harm do not equate to a suicide attempt. There is no

10

foundation for Dr. Stewart's claim of 45 attempts in the last 30 months, or that even if there were,

11

whether that is unusual for a jail. Third, the assertion about there being "multiple class members"

12

who attempted suicide by hanging themselves in the Jail is misleading.

13
14

Yuba has addressed suicide hazards in the old part of the Jail. See Declaration Regarding
Operation of the Yuba County Jail,

1 11.

The Jail cells are continually checked, and constantly

;>:.JNN

-<
~~
IX;,.,o"-a-a 15
u_J:::::c:;;;;
f-~OJ . . . .
oix~E...:i:><
·- e u.i < 16

monitored. The County has evaluated physical conditions of the Jail and has done the following to
address concerns over suicide risks: 16 additional intercom buttons to give inmates fulltime

o...:S~t"""(.t.
0
V)

M

ell

17

communication with correction staff were added; 13 additional security cameras to provide greater

18

remote visual coverage were added; soap dishes in showers were removed to eliminate tie-off

19

points; the Jail is in the process of lowering shower curtains to make it more difficult for inmates

20

to hide while they shower; the Jail has replaced longer telephone cords with shorter cords to

21

reduce the possibility of inmates using them to harm themselves; removal of towel bars as they

22

can be used as tie-off points; removal of door handle off of the door in the female section; a couple

23

of other door handles elsewhere in the female side that were removed; the Jail is in the process of

24

eliminating the pipes that were potential tie-off points. See Declaration Regarding Operation of

25

the Yuba County Jail, 1 11.

26

Plaintiffs' claim of a lack of accountability regarding razor blades and access to toxic

27

chemicals is misplaced. Inmates have the right to personal hygiene items such as razors. The Jail

28

uses industry standard razors, i.e., razors that are designed for institutional use. See Declaration
{01637631 DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
39

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 46 of 70

0
0
N

or,

f&l - '-0
f- -~
::l,r,ooO

0 (/)•

°'

"'T

r--

2i <l'. °' r--:
--<u~~
-

M

1

Regarding Operation of the Yuba County Jail, , 23. Inmates are allowed to possess these razors

2

unless they demonstrate suicidal ideations, in which case the razor blades are removed (in

3

combination with other applicable policies pertaining to inmates who demonstrate suicidal

4

ideations). Id.

5

chemical solutions for cleaning purposes. Id. Those rights are only removed if the inmate's

6

behavior demonstrates an inability to responsibly use such items. Id. For example, if an inmate is

7

determined to have suicidal ideations, the inmate is not permitted to have chemical solutions. Id.;

8

see also Declaration Regarding Types and Uses of Cells, , 3. The assertion it takes "several

9

minutes" for a Correction Officer from the new side of the Jail to respond to the old side of the Jail

10

is blatantly false. A floor officer is always assigned to each side of the old jail (i.e., one officer is

11

assigned to the floor of the men's side and one officer is assigned to the floor of the women's

12

side). See Declaration Regarding Operation of the Yuba County Jail,, 24.

13
14

Inmates also have a right to clean their living space, and the Jail distributes

2)

Claim 2 regarding administrative segregation

There are no provisions in the Consent Decree that address what standards the Jail is to

ti)

ci:::.os~~

w
f-

·-~

i::
11)

°' °'

15

ci:::~E.....:i:><: 16
oQ..;:J·a e~f-1-I-,
w.i <i:
0

or,
M

(/)

apply for classification or housing of inmates identified with mental illness.

.•••

Insofar as Plaintiffs complain one inmate was housed in isolation under the Administrative

17

segregation policy, said inmate fails to point to any violation of the Consent Decree that resulted

18

said housing. Regardless, any attempt to raise individual claims without exhaustion of the PLRA

19

would be inappropriate.

20

To the extent considered by the court, Defendant submit that it is well settled that a

21

prisoner has no constitutional right to a particular classification status or housing. See Moody v.

22

Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88, (1976); Giba v. Cook, 232 F. Supp. 2d 1171, 1183 (D. Or. 2002) ("it is

23

unnecessary for this court to compare the difference between the segregation units"). On this

24

basis, the court need not engage in any analysis.

25

The Administrative Segregation Policy raised by Plaintiffs (Order C-153 - Assignment to

26

Administrative Segregation) is a classification decision. See Declaration Regarding Types and

27

Uses of Cells,,, 3, 9; see also Order C-153, Bates page nos. 9117-9118 of Exhibit C to Appendix

28

of Exhibits; see also Declaration of Dr. Jason Roof, , 4g. Primarily, it is based on the safety and
{01637631.DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
40

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 47 of 70

1

security of the inmates and jail staff. Id. A person's mental condition is considered when making a

2

decision whether or not the person should be placed in administrative segregation. Id.

3

The County has specific policies regarding administrative segregation. See Order C-153-

4

Assignment to Administrative Segregation, Bates page nos. 9117-9118 of Exhibit C to Appendix

5

of Exhibits. Those policies are appropriate and within standards. See Declaration of Dr. Jason

6

Roof,

7

inmates. Id.

1 4g;

see also Declaration of Jim Sida,

1 6.

They do not create an undue risk of harm to

8

Individuals may be placed in administrative segregation for the following reasons: if there

9

is a reasonable risk of escape; if the inmate exhibits traits or assaultive behavior which leads an

10

officer to reasonably conclude the individual poses a danger to other inmates or staff; is suffering

11

from a physical ailment that requires isolation from other inmates; must be kept apart from other

12

inmates for compelling security reasons for the inmate's own personal safety; or if the inmate
voluntarily requests placement in a one-man cell when the circumstances indicate that would be in
the best interest of the inmate and the facility. See Declaration Regarding Types and Uses of Cells,

19.
Primarily, administrative segregation for men occurs in A-Pod. Id. A-Pod consists of 20
two-person cells with a common day room. Id.

For women, this occurs in "S Tank," which

18

consists of 6 two-person cells. Id. The Jail also uses "Q-Tanks" on both the male and female side.

19

Id. On the male side, there are 3 cells, 2 of which hold 4 persons in one single cell. Id. On the

20

female side, there are 2 two-person cells. Id. Those cells are often used to house inmates away

21

from the general population for a variety of safety/security reasons. Id. Every assignment of a

22

person to administrative segregation requires a written report providing an explanation that

23

necessitated the assignment. Id. Administrative segregation consists of separate secure housing,

24

but does not involve any deprivation of privileges (including participation in programs or

25

recreation) unless that is necessary to obtain the objective of protecting the inmate and the staff.

26
27

Plaintiffs acknowledge that the current Jail policy does not require individuals with mental

28

illness to be segregated. However they go on to suggest that other policies require segregation of
{01637631.DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
41

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 48 of 70

those with mental illness. Plaintiffs' argument is misleading and wrong. The Jail Classification
2

Policy states that "Mentally Disordered inmates shall be housed separate from other inmates (refer

3

to D-401)." See Declaration Regarding Types and Uses of Cells, ,i 3; see also Order C-101 -

4

Classification Plan, Bates page nos. 9099-9104 of Exhibit C of Appendix of Exhibits. "Mentally

5

Disordered" inmates are defined as those "inmates who are mentally disordered and appear to be a

6

danger to self or others, or who appear to be gravely disabled." Id. If a person is "mentally

7

disordered," segregation is appropriate. That does not mean that every person with a mental

8

illness is segregated.

9

Further, Order C-101 (regarding "mentally disordered" inmates) is qualified by reference to

10

Order D-401. If an inmate is identified as "mentally disordered," the person is segregated until a

11

physician exam is secured, which must occur within 24 hours. See Order D-401, Bates page nos.

12

9257-9259 of Exhibit C of Appendix of Exhibits. If the decision is made at intake, the "mentally

13

disordered" person is not accepted and must be cleared by Sutter-Yuba Behavioral Health before

14

entering the Jail. Id. The policy goes on to state, a person's developmental disability, mental

--~ u ~ ~ 15
~;;.-..o'°'°

illness, or mental disorder is a factor in considering where to house that person. Id. The Jail does

0
0
N

lf"l

&l - '°
f-..:llf"l000
f-, -~

Q<ZlO\'S!"C--•

-

M

~,.;<o;r--:

u.:J .-:::: 'E ~ ;;
f-,~<> . . . .
~
....l :><:
0 -~ .... u.l
'1.
al f- w..

., §

:5
0
I/")

M

<Zl

< 16

not segregate a person simply because of mental illness. A person's mental condition is a factor in

17

housing decisions, in order to make sure the person is housed in a circumstance which is safe. See

18

Declaration Regarding Types and Uses of Cells, ,i 3. Those that are a risk of danger to themselves

19

or others (i.e., "Mentally Disordered") are segregated as, by definition, they are a risk to

20

themselves or others, and therefore segregated housing is appropriate. Id.; see also Declaration of

21

Dr. Jason Roof, ,i 4g.

22

Plaintiffs' claims regarding administrative segregation and suicide risk, are not supported

23

by any evidence. There is no evidence of "rampant" suicide attempts by those in administrative

24

segregation.

25

Plaintiffs are incorrect in their suggestion that those in administrative segregation are

26

simply kept in their cell 23 hours a day, with no other out of cell time.

27

(Administrative Segregation), assignment to administrative segregation does not involve the

28

deprivation of other privileges except those that are necessary to obtain the objective of protecting
{01637631.DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE

42

Per Order C-153

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 49 of 70

the inmate and staff. See Order C-153 - Assignment to Administrative Segregation, Bates page
2

nos. 911 7-9118 of Exhibit C to Appendix of Exhibits. Those in administrative segregation, unless

3

there is a compelling reason due to safety and security, are offered out-of-cell recreation time just

4

like any other inmate. See Declaration Regarding Types and Uses of Cells, ,r9.

5

Ultimately, the Jail's policy regarding administrative segregation is appropriate and within

6

applicable standards. See Declaration of Dr. Jason Roof, ,r 4g; see also Declaration of Jim Sida, ,r

7

6g. Placing an inmate in administrative segregation does not create an undue risk of harm to that

8

person. Id.

9

0
0

N

V'l

'°

E&l r' -~
:=v,ooO

0

C/l

•

°'

'St r--

M

~ <U<!'.O\r-:

-~>-.o'°'°
<u ~ ~

w .~ C ;:: ;::

E-

~

0

..

There are no provisions in the Consent Decree that address what standards the Jail is to

11

apply for housing of inmates in the cells designated as "safety cells" Accordingly, Plaintiffs'

12

Motion should be denied.

13

V)

C/l

Insofar as Plaintiffs complain individuals were was temporarily housed in safety cells, said

14

inmates fail to point to any violation of the Consent Decree that resulted from said housing.

15

Further, any attempt to raise individual claims without exhaustion of the PLRA would be

.

µ.l

0

Claim 3 regarding use of safety cells

10

~ ~ E .....i X 16
oo..:§gf-~
·- e -<
M

3)

inappropriate.

17

Regardless, Defendants submit that County's safety cell policy meets correctional and

18

constitutional standards. See Declaration of Kathryn Wild, ,r 9; see also Declaration of Dr. Jason

19

Roof, ,r 4f; see also Declaration of Jim Sida, ,r 6c; see also Declaration Regarding Types and Uses

20

of Cells, if7; see also Order C-154 - Assignment to Safety Cell, Bates page nos. 9119-9121 of

21

Exhibit C to Appendix of Exhibits. Only those inmates who display behavior which results in the

22

destruction of property or reveals an intent to cause physical harm to self or others, or those

23

classified as "Mentally Disordered" - i.e., inmates who are a danger to self or others or who

24

appear to be gravely disabled, are placed in safety cells. See Declaration Regarding Types and

25

Uses of Cells, if7; see also Order C-154, Bates page nos. 9119-9121 of Exhibit C to Appendix of

26

Exhibits. Placement in safety cells can only occur if authorized by management. Id. For those

27

inmates classified as "Mentally Disordered," they are to be retained in the cell only until such time

28

as he/she can be evaluated by mental health for treatment or retention. Id. That evaluation must be
{01637631.DOCX)

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
43

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 50 of 70

secured within 24 hours of placement. Id. Those found unable to be cared for adequately within

0
0
N

1/"l

&l - '°
f.-::llf"lOOO
f,- -~

0

Cl)

•

°'

"St
-

r--

M

~ o.><eo-C--:

--<u~~
;,-,o'°'°
~
µ.l -~ 'E= ;:: ;::
l""' ...

d)

• •

0
.,..,
M

Cl)

the Jail are transferred to YCBH.

3

observation at least twice every 30 minutes. Id. The shift supervisor evaluates the placement of

4

inmates in safety cells at the beginning of their shift, and at the end of the shift, or more

5

frequently, if necessary. Id. At a minimum, the evaluation is conducted once every 8 hours. Id. It

6

is stated, "It is desirable to move inmates out of the safety cells as soon as reasonably possible

7

without risking the wellbeing of the inmate, staff, or other inmates." Id.

8

the inmate must be made within 12 hours of placement in the safety cell, or the next sick call,

9

whichever is earliest. Id. Medical staff must give an opinion to the shift supervisor regarding the

10

continued retention of the inmate in a safety cell. Id. The inmate shall be medically cleared for

11

continued retention every 24 hours thereafter. Id. A mental health evaluation must occur within

12

24 hours of placement in a safety cell. id. Mental Health shall give an opinion to the Watch

13

Commander as to the continued retention in the safety cell. Id. Safety cells shall be sanitized after

14

each use. Id.

Id.

Those placed in a safety cell are under direct visual

Medical assessment of

15

The Jail's policies and procedures regarding the use of the safety cells are appropriate and

16

within applicable standards. See Declaration of Kathryn Wild, 1 9; see also Declaration of Dr.

17

Jason Roof, 1 4f; see also Declaration of Jim Sida, 1 6c. Further, the policies and procedures do

18

not create an undue risk of harm to inmates. See Declaration of Dr. Jason Roof, 14f.

• .

~<>§....iX
w.i <C

o0... ·a;:.) .g. f-

2

i:.,..

19

Plaintiffs argue that the safety cell policies and practices create a significant risk of suicide.

20

Yet, Plaintiffs cite no instance in which a person placed in a safety cell has attempted suicide. In

21

fact, it is evident, given the history of the Yuba County Jail that its use of safety cells is

22

appropriate, and has substantially reduced the likelihood of a person hurting themselves, or others.

23

In over 10 years there have been no suicides in the Jail. See Declaration Regarding Operation of

24

the Yuba County Jail, 14.

25

Plaintiffs make the unsupported assertions regarding the ability of "crisis counselors" to

26

make initial assessments regarding those placed in safety cells. First, the "crisis counselors" are

27

very well qualified, and are the same persons a community member would see if they sought

28

emergency mental health services in Yuba County. See Declaration Regarding Mental Health
{01637631.DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE

44

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 51 of 70

Services, ,i,i 9-14; see also Declaration of Kathryn Wild, ,i 8 and Declaration of Dr. Jason Roof,

0
0
N

f-< <U
f-< .-::
::l

lt"l

2

i!4d. Second, there is also a Licensed Clinical Social Worker involved in decision making and

3

available for consultation. See Declaration Regarding Mental Health Services, ,i 13; see also

4

Declaration of Dr. Jason Roof, i!4d. In that regard, Crisis Counselors do assess whether a person is

5

a risk of harm to him or herself, and, as such, need to be evaluated by another healthcare provider

6

such as a Licensed Mental Health Practitioner (LMHP), psychologist, or psychiatrist. See

7

Declaration Regarding Mental Health Services, ,i 13. However, Crisis Counselors do not make

8

treatment or diagnosis decisions. Id. Those types of decisions are made by a LMHP or Psychiatrist

9

in consultation with the Crisis Counselors, and/or others. Id.

10

Additionally, telepsychiatry services are used at the SYBH facility in Yuba City, and in the

11

Jail. Id., ,i 15. The same telepsychiatrist, Dr. Odom, is used both at the SYBH facility and at the

12

Jail. Id. Persons using telepsychiatry services, whether at the SYBH facility, or at the Jail, are

13

assessed by a Licensed Vocational Nurse, who is present when the telepsychiatry services are

'°
0
°'
14
?.;; <!). <( °' ""
r...:

provided. Id. A second psychiatrist was recently hired by the County to provide psychiatric

;-..o"''°
0:: ~

15

services specific to the ICE detainee population. Id. The foregoing procedures are appropriate and

§ ....i

16

within applicable standards. See Declaration of Dr. Jason Roof, ,i 4d; see also Declaration of

17

Kathryn Wild, ,i,i 6c, 8, 9.

N

00
lt"l 00 0
C/l
'<t c-

-

-~u~~

o:::

~ -~ E

f-,< ..

0:::..,

<U

....

0 -~ ... w

X

<(

o..:§~f-u..
0
lt')

""

C/l

18

3.

19

Generally, it is argued by Plaintiffs, the law requires a jail to provide ready access to

20

adequate medical care. Plaintiffs argue that jails must also identify and address conditions of

21

confinement that are likely to cause future serious illness or needless suffering. An overriding

22

theme by Plaintiffs is the suggestion 24/7 on-site medical staff is required. There is no law or

23

applicable standard which requires that to occur.

24

Out-Patient Medical and Mental Health

a.

25

Plaintiffs' Claims
1)

Claim No. 1- Medication Practices.

26

Plaintiffs claim that the County's policies and practices regarding medications are deficient

27

and dangerous. It is asserted Defendants "frequently" delay and/or deny the continuation of

28

community - prescribed medications without face-to-face evaluations and documented clinical
{Ol63763ID0CX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
45

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 52 of 70

1

justification. Motion, 26:7-13; Stewart Deel. ~~198, 189-191; Exhibits A, C, EE; Grunfeld Deel.

2

~50. It is also asserted it "appears" the County engages in a dangerous 30 day detoxification

3

process for prisoners who arrive at the Jail intoxicated or with a history or drug or alcohol abuse.

4

Motion at 26:13-15; Stewart Deel. ~194. Additionally, it is claimed it "appears" inmates have a

5

difficult time obtaining medication if there has been any gap in the taking of medication while in

6

the community. Motion at 26:15-17 and Stewart Deel.~ 197.

7

Plaintiffs assert the County lacks an adequate system of timely monitoring the efficacy of

8

prisoners' medication and adequately responding to ineffective medications. For example, they

9

argue the Jail medication policy fails to include timeframes within which a jail physician or

10

psychiatrist is required to follow-up with the patient after prescribing new medication. Motion,

11

27:3-10; Stewart Deel. ~199; Grundfeld Deel. ~77 and Exhibit FFF.

12
0
0

r-<
r-<
0

N

I(")

'°

OJ N

,<;::
00 :::::.,.000
Cl:) O'I 'ST r-"

-

M

Plaintiffs attack the County's policies and practices regarding alcohol and drug

14

withdrawal. They start with the claim the Jail relies on non-medical staff to screen inmates for use

-~u~~
15
"'oo'°'°
w ·- C: ;: a-:
c:i.;§gf--<µ.,
M

issues at intake. Motion, 29:26-28; Stewart Deel.~~ 45, 204; Stanley Deel.~ 59.

•"

"'Q)§....lX
0 .2: ... w <!'. 16
ou:i
.,.

Claim 2 - Alcohol and Drug Withdrawal.

13

2i5~<!'.°'r-,:
f-,~<Ll

2)

After intake, the plaintiffs argue Yuba continues to rely on unqualified medical staff to

17

identify and treat Plaintiffs with serious withdrawal symptoms.

18

to custody officers who regularly house intoxicated prisoners in the sobering cells. Motion at

19

30:6-22.

It is argued treatment often falls

20

Plaintiffs then attack the County's withdrawal policies. It is claimed that those protocols

21

are not evidence-based. Plaintiffs also claim that medical assistance for prisoners with mild or

22

moderate alcohol or heroin withdrawal is not provided. It is also claimed that the Jail lacks

23

withdrawal protocols for Benzodiazepine and psychostimulants. Motion, 30:23-31 :4.

24

3)

Claim 3 - Access to Psychosocial Treatment.

25

Based on an inspection by Dr. Stewart in March of 2015, he concluded, at that time, there

26

were no mental health staff members that were "capable of and did provide one-on-on or group

27

psychosocial treatment to prisoners with mental illness." Motion, 31: 18-23; Stewart Deel.

28

Dr. Stewart opines that without such staff, the Jail relied on "untrained" crisis counselors. Stewart
{01637631 DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
46

~

176.

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 53 of 70

1

Deel. ,r,r 227-229.

4)

2
3
4

Claim 4 - Regular Delays and Outright Denials of the Provision
Medical Care.

It is claimed that the County perpetually delays or denies responding to sick call requests.

Motion, 32:11-12.

5

5)
6
7

Plaintiffs assert that the Jail fails to provide confidentiality both in the booking process and

8
9
10
11

when providing mental and medical care. Motion at 33:24-25. It is asserted, during the initial
bookkeeping process, questions are asked in the central booking area at an open counter and new
prisoners are "just a few feet away."

N

V"l

E~ - 'Cl
f- -~
::lV)000

0

IZl

•

°'

"1"

°'
-

r--

r')

~ d) <'. r-:
-~u~~

13
14

ix:os~~ 15
.lJ ·-

C 0\ 0\
E- ~ <l.)
....
CX:~E...J~
0 ·- ~ u.l <'.
c..:§~f-i:i..

0 IZl
V)
r')

16

dedicated mental health treatment space. Motion, 33:24-34:2; Grundfeld Deel. i!82; Exhibit KKK.
And, the Jail provides medical care in a small exam room that is frequently used by other service
providers when not being used by medical staff and in a nurse's station that is crowded and
undersize. Motion, 34:5-13; Grundfeld Deel. ,r82; Exhibit KKK.
Lastly, it is asserted the Jail fails to provide adequate language interpretation for medical

17
18

and mental health treatment. Motion, 35:7-23.

b.

19

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Defendants' Response

Plaintiffs reference the portion of the Consent Decree that requires that prisoners at the Jail

20
21

Motion, 33:25-27.

Plaintiffs claim when providing mental health treatment, Defendants do not have a

12
0
0

Claim 5 - Failure to Provide Adequate Confidentiality and
Language Interpretation for Medical and Mental Health
Treatment.

be provided with out-patient physical healthcare and in-patient and out-patient mental healthcare
as needed.

See Consent Decree Sec. V.A.3., Exhibit B to Appendix of Exhibits.

Plaintiffs do not point to any particular provision that has been violated.

However,

Similarly, Plaintiffs

reference, Sec. V.Q. (Substance Abuse), Sec. R. (Mental Health Services), Sec. V.A.4. (Mental
Health Counselor), but again provide no evidence of a specific violation of those sections. In fact,
the County complies with those policies.

See Declaration Regarding Provisions of Consent

Decree at ,r~ 3(c) and (d); 11; 12.

II I
(01637631.DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE

47

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 54 of 70

1)

0
0
N

f- .,
f- .<;::
::l

0

Cl)
•

'l"l

N

00 ~
'l"l 00 0

°'

set r--

r')

2i,.;<r:o,:r-:

--<u~~
~OB~~::£
µ.l
f-

°' °'

·~
c;i::.,

§ ....l

o..;5

gE---r.i..

t:::

<1)

0 .::: ..
0
OJ")
r')

Cl)

Claim 1- Medication practices

2

The Jail does not delay or deny continuation of community prescribed medications. It is

3

jail policy to take all prescription medication brought in by arrestees until they can be seen by

4

medical staff or unless special circumstances exist as outlined below. See Declaration Regarding

5

Provisions of Consent Decree,

6

and medical screening form. Id. The inmate is allowed to take the medication until the next sick

7

call in the prescribed dosage at the prescribed times if certain information is confirmed, including

8.

the inmate's name on the container and the medication matches the description in the Physician's

9

Desk Reference. Id. No arrestee who is determined to be intoxicated or under the influence of

10

drugs is given any medication. Id. If the medication is not in the arrestee's possession at the time

11

of arrest, and the next dosage is due before sick call, and is necessary for his/her health, the

12

arresting officer transports the arrestee to a medical facility to get the proper medication. Id.; see

13

also Order D-215, Bates page nos. 9231-9232 of Exhibit C to Appendix of Exhibits; see also

14

Order No. A-14 - Medication Administration to Patients, Bates page nos. 9368-9370 of Exhibit D

15

to Appendix of Exhibits; see also SYBH #17-003-Medication Refill Process, Bates 24819-24822

16

of Exhibit E to Appendix of Exhibits.

~

Se. All confiscated prescriptions are noted on the booking sheet

••••

;.,.J

X

<I'.

17

The Jail ensures that all medication is accepted, stored, administered, and released in such

18

a manner as to insure accountability at all times. See Declaration Regarding Provisions of Consent

19

Decree,

20

proper key control. Id. Jail and medical staff responsible for the passing of medication will ensure

21

that the inmate for whom a dose of a particular medication is intended, is the inmate who receives

22

and ingests that medication. Id. Only a physician, dentist, pharmacist, or other persons authorized

23

by law are authorized to procure, store, repackage, prepare labels, dispense, administer, or dispose

24

of medication consistent with pharmacy laws and regulations. Id.; see also Order D-216, Bates

25

page nos. 9233-9236 of Exhibit C to Appendix of Exhibits.

~

Se. All medical supplies are kept in secured areas of the facility with access limited by

26

Medication that an inmate has been prescribed may be released to them upon discharge

27

providing the medication label bears their name, dosage, and when it is to be taken. See

28

Declaration Regarding Provisions of Consent Decree, ~ Se. All medications being released shall be
{01637631.DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
48

 --------------------------------Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 55 of 70

1

reported to the Jail medical staff in order that it be logged into the respective medical chart. Id.;

2

see also Order D-217, Bates page nos. 9237-9238 of Exhibit C to Appendix of Exhibits.

3

The foregoing practices and procedures regarding medication are appropriate, within

4

applicable standards, and comply with the Consent Decree. See Declaration of Kathryn Wild,

5

6c, 6h, 1 la; see also Declaration of Dr. Jason Roof,, 4h.

ii~

6

Plaintiffs' claim regarding a lack of an adequate system to timely monitor the efficacy of

7

prisoners' medication is misplaced. That is a medical decision. As to when follow-up is to occur

8

is decided by the physician or psychiatrist, not by some County policy.

9

The County does not engage in a "30 Day detoxification Process," as Plaintiffs claim. To

10

the contrary, those suffering withdrawal are treated. As required by Title 15, section 1213, the Jail

11

has a policy to address detoxification within the Jail facility or at another medical facility. See

12

Order D-205, Bates page no. 9206 of Exhibit C to Appendix of Exhibits. Also, Jail Medical
Policy A-37 addresses alcohol withdrawal. See Bates page nos. 9410-9413 of Exhibit D to
Appendix of Exhibits. The Jail follows the requirements of the Consent Decree and Title 15 and
transfer inmates to hospital if it is deemed necessary by medical staff. See Declaration Regarding
Provisions of Consent Decree,, 10. If medical staff believes treatment can be provided in the Jail,
those services are provided. Id.

18

Medical staff has established protocols regarding detoxification. Id.; see also

Alcohol

19

Withdrawal Flowsheet, Opiate Withdrawal Flowsheet and Benzo Withdrawal Flowsheet, Exhibits

20

F8, FlO, and Fl 1 to Appendix of Exhibits. Those protocols include monitoring that is consistent

21

with National Practice Guidelines. See Declaration of Kathryn Wild,, 6k. Specifically, for alcohol

22

withdrawal, the patient is placed on CIWA monitoring; for opiate withdrawal the patient is placed

23

on COWS monitoring; and for Benzodiazepine withdrawal, the patient is monitored utilizing the

24

Benzodiazepine assessment form. Id.

25

Counselor. Id.; see also Declaration Regarding Provisions of Consent Decree, , 10.

The Jail also employs a fulltime Substance Abuse

26

The foregoing practices and procedures regarding drug and alcohol withdrawal are

27

appropriate, within applicable standards, and comply with the Consent Decree. See Declaration of

28

Kathryn Wild, ,i, 6k, 11 b; see also Declaration of Dr. Jason Roof, ,i 4i; see also Declaration of Jim
(01637631 DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE

49

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 56 of 70

1

Sida, ,r 6d.

2
3

2)

Claim 2 - Alcohol and Drug Withdrawal

At intake (which is discussed above at VII(A)(l)(b)), inmates are screened. See

,r,: Sa,

4

Declaration Regarding Provisions of Consent Decree,

5

Types and Uses of Cells,

6

about drug and alcohol use and addiction. Id. If a person is identified as having an addiction issue,

7

the Jail has clear and appropriate polices that are followed.

8
9

,r 5.

1O; see also Declaration Regarding

As part of that screening process, the inmate is asked questions

Those who are addicted to drugs or alcohol are put into a program and monitored by
healthcare professionals. See Declaration Regarding Provisions of Consent Decree,

,r 1O; see also

10

Order D-205, Bates pages no. 9206 to Exhibit C of Appendix of Exhibits; see also Jail Medical

11

Policy A-37, Bates page nos. 9410-9413 of Exhibit D to Appendix of Exhibits. The Jail maintains

12

specific policies and procedures which are well-established within the industry. See Declaration of

13

Kathryn Wild,

14

policy and practice regarding alcohol (CIWA), opiates (COWS), and Benzodiazepine (Benzo

--<U~~
oB~~

15

protocol). Id.;

0 .t ...

16

Alcohol Withdrawal Flowsheet, Opiate Withdrawal Flowsheet and Benzo Withdrawal Flowsheet,

17

Exhibits F8, FlO, and Fl 1 to Appendix of Exhibits. Order D-205 specifically addresses

18

detoxification at the Jail or at another medical facility. See Bates page no. 9206 of Exhibit C to

19

Appendix of Exhibits. Also, Jail Medical Policy A-37 addresses alcohol withdrawal. See Bates

20

page nos. 9410-9413 of Exhibit D to Appendix of Exhibits. As noted above, the Jail's practices

21

and procedures regarding drug and alcohol withdrawal are appropriate, within applicable

22

standards, and comply with the Consent Decree. See Declaration of Kathryn Wild,

23

also Declaration of Jim Sida, ,r 6d.

0
0
N

V"\

f-< ll) N
f-< .;:::
00 \0
:::lV)000

0

(/J

"

°' s:t r-

M

~..;<o,;i-:
i:z:::

°' °'

i:.i.l
i:: . . . .
f-< ·;;;
... ll)
0::ll)§-lX
(J.l

<

o..::5gf-,w..
0
(/J
V)
M

,r,r 6k,

11 b. Specifically, as discussed in the prior section, there is a withdrawal

see also Declaration Regarding Provisions of Consent Decree,

,r

10; see also

,r,r 6k, 11 b; see

24

The suggestion that Correction Officers provide treatment is ludicrous. Persons booked

25

into the Jail who are intoxicated are placed in sobering cells to be monitored. See Declaration

26

Regarding Types and Uses of Cells,

27

Sobering Cells, Bates page nos. 9122-9125 of Exhibit C to Appendix of Exhibits. The County

28

maintains polices regarding the use of sobering cells. Id. At intake, jail correctional staff identify

,rs;

see also Order C-155 - Intoxicated Persons and Use of

{01637631.DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
50

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 57 of 70

intoxicated persons during the intake process, assess the level of intoxication, and notify the

0
0

N V"l

&3 -

'°

f,-, -~
f,-,
;:3V)Q00
QCll0\"'1"t"•

-

M

~ O)<l'.O\r-:

2

supervisor. Id. The supervisor determines if the person is in need of immediate medical attention,

3

and if so, causes the prisoner to be examined by medical staff or to be taken to the hospital. Id. If

4

able to stay in the Jail, the intoxicated person is placed in a sobering cell until they are able to care

5

for their safety and the safety of others. Id. Those placed in the sobering cell are checked every 30

6

minutes. Id. The check includes an observation for the inmate's breathing to determine if it is

7

regular; observation to determine whether there has been any vomiting while sleeping; and an

8

arousal attempt to ensure the person can respond to verbal or pressure stimulation. Id. A medical

9

evaluation of any- sobering inmate is done if that person is in the cell for more than six hours. Id.

10

Within two hours of the beginning of the shift, and every two hours thereafter, the supervisor

11

conducts a supervisor's review of all sobering persons. Id. The Jail uses a Sobering Assessment

12

Form to continually assess the inmate's condition. Id.; see also Exhibit F6 to Appendix of

13

Exhibits. The Jail's policies relating to the use of sobering cells are appropriate, within applicable

14

standards, and comply with the Consent Decree. See Declaration of Kathryn Wild, , 1O; see also

-~u~~
~

;,-,o'°'° 15

u.:J -~ C ;;: ;;:

Declaration of Jim Sida, , 6.

f,-, ~ <I) ....
~<I)§ .....l X 16
o·::: . . w-<

0...

;5 ~,....
0 C/l
V)
M

3)

Claim 3 - Access to psychosocial treatment

r.i..

17

Every inmate at the Jail has access to psychosocial treatment - the same treatment that is

18

available to community members who seek such care from community provided resources. See

19

Declaration Regarding Provisions of Consent Decree, ,~ 2c, 2d; see also Declaration Regarding

20

Mental Health Services,, 2; see also SYBH #11-062 - Access to Behavioral Health Services by

21

Incarcerated Individuals and #12-031-Jail Referral Process, and #11-029 - Crisis Evaluation of

22

Arrested Individuals, attached to Exhibit E of the Appendix of Exhibits. Plaintiffs' claim that the

23

Jail relies on "untrained crisis counselors" is misplaced.

24

Sutter-Yuba Behavioral Health provides mental health services to the Jail. See Declaration

25

Regarding Provisions of Consent Decree, , 2d. It also provides those services to the Sutter/Yuba

26

Counties community. Id. See Declaration Regarding Provisions of Consent Decree,, 2d; see also

27

Declaration Regarding Mental Health Services, , 2.

28

Sutter-Yuba Behavioral Health staffs two crisis counselors at the Jail (one position is
{01637631 DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
51

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 58 of 70

1

currently open and will be filled shortly). See Declaration Regarding Provisions of Consent

2

Decree,

3

counselor works Monday - Friday, 6:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. Id. The second crisis counsel will

4

work 40 hours a week during the off hours and/or off days of the current crisis counselor, in order

5

to provider more coverage. Id. In addition, there is a Licensed Clinical Social Worker at the Jail.

6

Id. She works Monday - Friday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. Id. Sutter-Yuba Behavioral Health also

7

provides telepsychiatry services. Id. There are two psychiatrists available. Id. One provides

8

services every Wednesday, plus two additional 8 hour days per month on Tuesdays. Id. The other

9

provides services for 8 hours every Thursday. Id. Sutter-Yuba Behavioral Health also has people

10

on call, at its facility and Rideout, who are available to assist with inmate issues 24 hours a day, 7

11

days a week. See Declaration Regarding Provisions of Consent Decree, 1 2d; see also Declaration

12

Regarding Mental Health Services, 1 4. In addition, the Jail employs a full-time Substance Abuse

13

Counselor. See Declaration Regarding Provisions of Consent Decree,

°' ~ ..,.,

14

appropriate and within standards. See Declaration of Kathryn Wild;

--<u~~
CG -;,.,o'°'°

15

Dr. Jason Roof, 1 41.

0
0
N

,,-,

~ .~ ~ - \0
f-,:::lor,ooO

0

Cl)

"

-

i--

~<><t:O\r--:

w
.-t= !:
f-,~ll)

CG ~ E

0 ·- ~
Q.. ;5 ~
Cl)

.,..,
..,.,

0

:;:

~
...
...i

><
~-< 16
f- "'
17

1 2d;

see also Declaration Regarding Mental Health Services,

1 6.

The current crisis

1 2d.

1 6k;

Such staffing is

see also Declaration of

Mental healthcare professionals do not need to be at the Jail 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
in order for inmates to have access to mental health treatment 24/7. See Declaration of Dr. Jason

1 4b.

18

Roof,

19

that individual can obtain services through on-call procedures, or otherwise be transferred to

20

Rideout Hospital and/or Sutter-Yuba Behavioral Health. Id. Those services are available 24/7. Id.

21

Inmates are not placed at an increased risk of harm simply due to the fact that mental healthcare

22

staff are not on-site 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Id. Like any member of the community, if a

23

mental health emergency arises, emergency services are available at local hospitals and/or Sutter-

24

Yuba Behavioral Health. Id. In addition, telepsychiatry services are appropriate and a well-

25

recognized practice. Id., 1 4e. Doing so does not create an undue risk of harm to the inmates. Id.

Id. If an issue arises during a time there is not a mental healthcare provider on-site,

26

The Jail's policies and procedures relating to the care and treatment of inmates with mental

27

health needs are appropriate, within applicable standards, and comply with the Consent Decree.

28

See Declaration of Kathryn Wild,

1 61;

see also Declaration of Dr. Jason Roof,

{01637631.DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
52

1 4i.

In fact, the

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 59 of 70

1

mental healthcare services provided at the Jail are in excess of the requirements of the Consent

2

Decree and the Jail's policies and practices relating to the provision of mental healthcare do not

3

create an undue risk of harm to the inmates and detainees at the Jail. See Declaration of Dr. Jason

4

Roof, 14a.

5

0
0

The Consent Decree requires daily sick call. See Exhibit B to Appendix of Exhibits, para.

7

V.F., p 16. The Jail provides daily sick call. See Declaration Regarding Provisions of Consent

8

Decree, 1 7. Inmates desiring to see a nurse are permitted to fill out a sick call request form. Id.;

9

see also Order D-204, Bates page nos. 9202-9205 of Exhibit C to Appendix of Exhibits. The

10

Consent Decree also requires that, if during sick call, the nurse determines the inmate should see a

11

physician or other specialist, a referral slip is prepared, which includes a provision for the

12

maximum time which can elapse before the care is provided. See Exhibit B to Appendix of

13

Exhibits, para. V.F., p. 17. The Jail does that. See Declaration of Kathryn Wild, 1 6e; see also

14

Declaration of Jim Sida, 1 6b. If during sick call the healthcare professional determines the inmate

15

needs to see a specialist, of any sort, referrals are made. See Declaration Regarding Provisions of

. . n< 16

Consent Decree, 1 7b; see also Order D-204, Bates page nos. 9202-9205 of Exhibit C to Appendix

f- .~ &l - 'Ci
f- ::>v,ooO

QVlOs"'1"1•

-

M

u
o.i<l'.°'r-:
C/);,.UNN
-<!'.
~

>,J.l

~~

'Ci 'Ci
,q E0 ;;
;;::

f-~<J ....
~~s

0 ·- ~ ..t.J <l'.

o.,:§gE-µ..
0
V)

M

VJ

Claim 4 - Delay or denial of medical care

6

v,

N

4)

17

of Exhibits. This includes referrals for x-rays, which are able to be done on-site. Id.

18

If an inmate has an emergency, treatment is provided immediately. See Declaration

19

Regarding Provisions of Consent Decree, 1 8. There are written procedures for medical

20

emergencies. See Order D-204, I, Bates page no. 9202 of Exhibit C to Appendix of Exhibits.

21

Medical and mental health care are available to inmates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. See

22

Declaration Regarding Provisions of Consent Decree, 1 11. Dr. Nijjar is on call 24/7. See

23

Declaration Regarding Medical Staff, 1 2a. Staff at SYBH are on call 24/7. See Declaration

24

Regarding Provisions of Consent Decree, 1 11. An inmate may be transported to Rideout Hospital

25

for emergency services at any time, which includes emergency mental health care services. Id.

26

Decisions regarding care and treatment, including who has priority in treatment, is made

27

by medical staff, depending all the facts and circumstances. See Declaration Regarding Provisions

28

of Consent Decree, 11 5a, 7b, 8b. Just because an inmate states he or she has a condition that
{01637631 DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE

53

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 60 of 70

1

requires immediate attention, does not mean that it does. That is the same in the community,

2

where patients may often have to wait for to see a healthcare professional because of staffing

3

availability or other patients that require more immediate attention.

4

The Jail's policies relating to medical care are appropriate, within applicable standards, and

5

comply with the Consent Decree. See Declaration of Kathryn Wild, ,i,i 6e, 6f; see also Declaration

6

of Jim Sida, ,i 6b.

7
8

Claim 5 - Failure to Provide Adequate Confidentiality and
Language interpretation

9

Reasonable confidentiality is maintained when medical issues are discussed. At intake,

10

those questions are asked in a closed room where only the booking officer, the arrestee and, if

11

needed, the arresting officer is present. See Declaration Regarding Operation of the Yuba County

12

Jail, ,i 16. If the inmate is accepted into the Jail, the person goes through a booking process. Id.

13

During that process, the officer does ask booking related questions, which can include medical

14

questions. Id. That is done at a counter, but it is not just a "few feet away" from other new

~02:S:'2 15

arrestees. Id. Booking officers are cognizant of confidential questions, and do ask question in a

~ ~ E
0 ·- f::

manner that reduces the possibility of others overhearing. Id. The Jail has appropriate policies and

0
0

N v,

f--, .~ ~ - 'CJ
f--,;::v,ooO
0 (/l
set r--

~

•

°'

-

M

,;-<o.:i-.:

-~u~~

°' °'

i:.i.l ·;;;
i:: . . .
f--,
.... .,

...i X 16
U.l -<
o..;:S~f--,""'
0
17
M
(/l

V)

18

5)

practices regarding confidentiality. See Declaration of Kathryn Wild, ,i l le; see also Declaration
of Jim Sida, ,i 6f. 11
It is without question that the Jail must make do with the space that is currently available.

19
20

Sometimes, rooms must be used for multiple purposes.

However, that does not mean

21

confidentiality is compromised. Such a leap in logic is not supported

22

Recognizing there are space limitations, the Jail has been working to open up additional

23

space since 2012. See Declaration Regarding Operation of the Yuba County Jail, ,i 12. Recently,

24

those efforts have paid off. In 2016, the County was awarded an SB 863 grant of 20 million

25

dollars. Id., ,i 13. Those funds will be used to construct a new building which will provide space

26

for medical and health services, as well as programing space for inmates. It is expected the

27
To improve confidentiality, the Jail recently modified its process so that no medical questions are asked at the
booking counter. If the inmate has questions, he/she is moved to a holding cell to discuss the issue. See Declaration
Regarding Operation of the Yuba County Jail, 1 17.
11

28

{01637631 DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
54

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 61 of 70

1

building will be completed in late 2019/early 2020. Id.,

2

In the meantime, the Jail has assessed ways to improve confidentiality. In doing so, it

3

changed its intake form, and now the booking officer does not ask any medical questions at the

4

booking counter. See Declaration Regarding Operation of the Yuba County Jail, ,i 17. The inmate

5

is asked to confirm the information on the form is correct. Id. If there are medical questions, the

6

inmate is taken to a holding cell to discuss with the booking officer. Id.

7

0
0

,er 13, 14.

Contrary to Plaintiffs' claim, there are Spanish speakers available to provide language
~

8

interpretation. Id.,

9

Line Solutions, which is standard in the industry and available 24/7. Id. For hearing impaired

10

inmates, the Jail uses TDD (Telecommunication Device for the Deaf) machines. Id. The Jail has

11

appropriate policies and practices regarding language interpretation. See Declaration of Kathryn

12

Wild,

~

19. As for languages other than Spanish, Yuba uses a service called Language

11 f; see also Declaration of Jim Sida, ~ 6f.

13

4.

14

Plaintiffs point out the Consent Decree requires that the Jail be staffed at a level sufficient

--<
°'~
~z:-.o-D'D 15

to fully comply with the terms of the Consent Decree. This includes providing outpatient physical

r' .... (!) • • • •
~~E...i><

16

healthcare and in-patient and out-patient mental health treatment. See Exhibit B to Appendix of

17

Exhibits, Sec. IV and Sec. V.A.4.

18

provision that has been violated.

19

a.

,r,

N

r' -~ &l - 'D
r<:::l,r,<>00

- ,...,

.

QCllO\-.:tt-

U<li<i::0-:r-'.
tZl

Mental Health and Medical Understaffing

>UN N

uJ ·en

C ~ ~-

o
·0.. ::S

eg u.l -<

0
Ir)

f-, [.I.,

C/l

M

However, again, Plaintiffs dos not point to any specific

Plaintiffs' Claims

20

Plaintiffs' claim regarding staffing is premised on the notion that the County is

21

intentionally understaffing the Jail. Motion, 35: 27-28. In addition, Dr. Stewart continues his

22

unfounded criticism of the use of crisis counselors. Motion, 37:18-25. Lastly, Dr. Stewart seems

23

to reiterate his criticism that there is not medical and mental health care staff on duty at the Jail 24

24

hours a day, 7 days a week. Motion, 37: 26-38:21.

b.

25
26

Defendants' Response

The Consent Decree specifies the required level of staffing. See Exhibit B to Appendix of

27

Exhibits, IV and V .A.

28

Medical Staff,~~ 2, 3. Further, it should be noted there is no law or standard that requires medical

The Jail far exceeds these staffing levels. See Declaration Regarding

_{01637631D0CX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
55

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 62 of 70

1
2

coverage 24/7.
Specifically, Yuba County Jail employs the following medical staff:

3

•

Dr. Jagraj Nijjar, Medical Director (infectious disease specialist). He works
Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, 3 hours per day. He is on call 24 hours
per day.

•

Elizabeth Adams, Licensed Family Nurse Practitioner. Her hours of work
are Monday- Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

•

Robert Leal, Licensed Vocational Nurse. His hours of work are Tuesday Friday, 5:00 a.m. -1:30 p.m., and Saturday, 3:00 p.m. -11:30 p.m.

•

Serhiy Hurbby, Licensed Vocational Nurse.
Sunday, 1:00 p.m. - 11 :30 p.m.

Her hours are Thursday -

•

Ambert Lema, Licensed Vocational Nurse.
Tuesday, 5:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

Her hours are Saturday -

•

Frances Grant, Licensed Vocational Nurse.
Wednesday, 1:00 p.m. - 11 :30 p.m.

Her hours are Sunday -

•

Kimberly Thompson, Certificated Medical Assistant.
Monday- Friday, 5:00 a.m. - 1:30 p.m.

•

Kao Vang, Certificated Medical Assistant.
Thursday, 1:00 p.m. - 9:30 p.m.

Her hours are Sunday -

•

Angela Lee, Certificated Medical Assistant.
Saturday, 5:00 a.m. - 1:30 p.m.

Her hours are Tuesday -

•

Nicolette Hodges, Certificated Medical Assistant.
Wednesday, for 4 hours.

•

Laura Ajuria, Certificated Medical Assistant. She works 20 hours per week
at various times.

•

Vianey Hernandez, Certificated Medical Assistant. She works 20 hours per
week at various times.

•

Selena Fermin, Certificated Medical Assistant.
week at various times.

•

Carlos Perez, Executive Director. He works Monday - Friday, 9:00 a.m. -

4
~

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

!::

0
0
NI()

13

OJ 00
N .-::
l,D
:ll(")OOO

QCl'lO\-etl"•

-

M

U,.;<t'.o-;r-,:
VJ > u N N
-<!'.
0)0)
CG 08~~
W-l ·E-~

C:
OJ

°' °'
"

"

CG~E....:ix

0 ·- !:: w <!'.

o..:§gf,-,µ..
0
I()

Cl)

14
15
16
17

M

18
19

Her hours are

20
21

Her hours are

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

She works 20 hours per

{01637631.DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
56

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 63 of 70
6:00 p.m.
2
3
4

See Declaration Regarding Medical Staff,

~

2.

Mental Health Services are provided by Sutter-Yuba Behavioral Health. Id., ~ 3. The
following Sutter-Yuba Behavioral Health staff provide services to the Yuba County Jail:

5

•

Kellie Baker, Crisis Counselor. She works Monday - Friday, 6:00 am to
2:30 pm

•

Rocio Rosas, Licensed Clinical Social Worker. She is the Forensic Mental
Health Specialist assigned to the Jail. She works Monday- Friday, 8:00 am
to 5:00 pm.

•

Dr. Joan Odom, Psychiatrist. She works 8 hours every Wednesday, plus an
additional 16 hours during the month. She provides tele-psychiatry
services.

•

The Yuba County Sheriff Department recently hired another psychiatrist,
Dr. Kalman to provide tele-psychiatry services specific to the ICE detainee
population. Dr. Kalman works 8 hours every Thursday.

•

Amber Niegel, Licensed Vocational Nurse. She works 8 hours every
Wednesday, plus 16 hours during the month. She accompanies inmates
when Dr. Odom provides services, unless a Spanish-speaking person is
needed. She writes orders for the doctor.

•

Xay Vang, Licensed Clinical Social Worker. He currently works between 8
and 16 hours weekly, filling in as extra help until a crisis counselor is hired.

•

There currently is an open position for a Crisis Counselor. It is anticipated
that that position will be filled shortly. Once filled, the person will work 40
hours a week during the off hours and/or off days of the current crisis
counselor, in order to provider more coverage.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0
0

N

V1

&l - '-D
fo-:::tr1000

13

f,- -~

OC/)°'"""r14
"
M

~<.i<t:0-:i--'.

--<u~~
o::: ;,..o'-D'°

~ .~ 'E: ~;;:
f,-i'.::OJ . . . .

15

o,::~E ....n< 16
r: w.J <t:

0 ·-

i:i..;§gE--<ti.
0
tr)

M

Cl)

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

See Declaration Regarding Medical Staff,

~

3.

The Jail's staffing to provide medical services is appropriate. See Declaration of Kathryn
~~

24

Wild, ~12; see also Declaration of Dr. Jason Roof,

25

week with nurses and medical assistants from 5 :00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. Id.

26

are responsible for the provision of treatment services that are ordered by the physician and/or

27

nurse practitioner, as well as respond to any urgent or emergent issues that arise while on duty. Id.

28

When healthcare personnel are not on-site, the physician and/or nurse practitioner is on-call for

4a, 4b. The facility is staffed seven days a

{01637631D0CX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
57

These healthcare staff

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 64 of 70

1

any issues for which the correctional officers require direction. Id.; see also Declaration Regarding

2

Medical Staff, 'if8, 9. In the event of a medical or mental health emergency, the correctional

3

officers will call EMS or transport the inmate to the emergency room at Rideout Hospital for care,

4

where SYBH has staff members available 24/7. Id. Just like would be the case if you were in your

5

home, if a medical emergency arises when health care staff are not present at the Jail, the local

6

hospital and SYBH are available to provide services.

7

Dr. Stewart seems to criticize the use of telepsychiatry. However, that is a completely

8

accepted, and necessary, practice. See Declaration of Dr. Jason Roof, 'if 4e. In fact, it is the same

9

services made available to the community, provided by the same psychiatrists. Id. As to use of

10

Crisis Counselors, that is appropriate, and does not cause an undue danger to inmates. Id., 'if 4d.

11

There is no credible evidence staffing levels are not reasonable under the circumstances.

12

There is nothing to suggest that Yuba County is intentionally understaffing, as suggested by

13

Plaintiffs.

14

dangerous, in not having medical staff on duty in the middle of the night. Health services are a

15
w
·i::
°'
°'
f-,i'.;<.> . . . .
~.., § ...:i X
0 .~ .... w --< 16

combined effort, and local providers are available 24/7 to provided required services. See

0
0

Nor,

&:l -

'°

f-, .~
f-,::lor,ooO
0 C/l"
r-M

°' ""'"

°' r-:
~--<u~~
~os:=::::
~ ~ --<

c..:§aif-r.i..

.,.,

0

C/l

Contrary to the suggestion by Dr. Stewart, there is nothing improper, or even

Declaration of Jim Sida,

'il'il 6, 6e. The staffing levels at the Jail are appropriate, comply with

'i!'i!

17

applicable standards, and comply with the Consent Decree. See Declaration of Kathryn Wild,

18

6a, 12. In fact, the County policies and practices far exceed all the staffing requirements except

19

that it does not currently have a Registered Nurse. Id., 'if 6a; see also Declaration Regarding

20

Medical Staffing, 'if3. However, the County has been, and currently is, undertaking efforts to hire a

21

Registered Nurse (RN). Id. Regardless, the County has hired a Family Nurse Practitioner (FNP),

22

which is not required by the Consent Decree. Id. A FNP has experience and training above that of

23

an RN, thus exceeds the requirements of the Consent Decree. Id.

M

24
25

In-Patient Mental Health Care and Addressing Plaintiffs with Serious Mental
Illness Who Require Psychiatric Hospitalization

26

a.

27
28

5.

Plaintiffs' Claims

It is asserted that the County fails to provide prisoners in acute psychiatric distress with in-

patient psychiatric care or emergency psychiatric hospitalization.

Motion, 40:23-41:3. As

{01637631.DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE

58

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 65 of 70

0
0
N

~
f,-,
0

V'l

.~ ~ \0
::l V'l 00 0
Cl)

°'

'St

r--

"
M
~.;<c,,;r--:

-«<u~~
~ 0 2"~ ~
°' °'

1

mentioned above, it is suggested that the Jail should have 24/7 mental health and medical care in-

2

patient hospitalization services. Motion, 41 :2-3; Stewart Deel. , 250. It is suggested the Jail

3

refuses to transfer prisoners to SYBH for in-patient care once they are admitted to the Jail,

4

regardless of whether the inmate is in acute psychiatric distress. Motion, 41 :4-12; Stewart Deel. ,

5

256-257.

6

Plaintiffs agam reference the use of certain cells to house inmates with psychiatric

7

conditions. It is asserted that because the Jail does not provide in-patient care, those in psychiatric

8

distress are frequently isolated in safety cells, medical isolation cells, or holding cells, without

9

mental health treatment or help to alleviate their symptoms. Motion, 42: 18-23 and Stewart Deel. ,

10

264. Plaintiffs also argue the Jail does not maintain a list of those who have been found

11

incompetent to stand trial. Plaintiffs claim that without such assistance, it is impossible for the Jail

12

to specifically attend to those prisoners' needs. Motion, 42:24-43:1.

13

b.

Defendants' Response

14

Plaintiffs generally reference the portions of the Consent Decree that address in-patient

15

mental health care that is required as needed. Motion at 40:15-22; see also Exhibit B to Appendix

16

of Exhibits, para. V .A.3; V .A.4; V .P. Again, Plaintiffs do not identify any specific violation of its

17

terms. In fact, the County complies with all of these terms. See Declaration Regarding Provisions

18

of Consent Decree, , 11; see also Declaration of Dr. Jason Roof, ,, 4i, 4k.

µ..l
·- ,:: . . . .
f,-,~O.,

~ ~ E
0 ·- ~

...i

X

iJJ <
c..;§~f-r.,...
0
.,.,
M

Cl)

19

It is accurate that the Jail does not currently 12 have a dedicated set of rooms specific for

20

addressing those in psychiatric need. However, that does not equate to not providing in-patient

21

services, or a refusal to transfer inmates once they are admitted to the Jail. Due to basic security

22

concerns, the Jail endeavors to keep inmates with mental issues at the Jail. Mental health services

23

are available and provided at the Jail. See Declaration Regarding Provisions of Consent Decree, ,

24

11; see also Order No. A-22 - Psychiatric Services, Bates page no. 9381 of Exhibit D; see also

25

SYBH #11-030, 12-031, and 11-029, attached as exhibit E to the Appendix of Exhibits. If a

26
12

27
28

As discussed above, in 2016, the County was awarded an SB 863 grant of 20 million dollars. See Declaration
Regarding Operation of the Yuba County Jail, 1 13. Those funds will be used to construct a new building which will
provide space for medical and health services. It is expected the building will be completed in late 2019/early 2020.
Id., 1113, 14.
{01637631.DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
59

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 66 of 70

0
0

N

V"\

1

medical professional determines that the person should not be housed at the Jail, then then person

2

is transferred to another facility. See Declaration Regarding Provisions of Consent Decree, 1 11.d.

3

If emergency services are required, the person is transported to Rideout or SYBH. Id. 111.

4

The Jail's policies relating to mental health care are appropriate, within applicable

5

standards, and comply with the Consent Decree. See Declaration of Dr. Jason Roof, 1 4a;

6

Declaration of Kathryn Wild, 1~ 6c-6f, 61, 7-9, 1 ld; see also Declaration of Jim Sida, 1 6b. The

7

policies and practices relating to mental healthcare services at the Jail do not create an undue risk

8

of harm to the inmates and detainees at the Jail. See Declaration of Dr. Jason Roof, 1 4a; see also

9

Declaration of Kathryn Wild, 1 61.

10

Those with significant mental health issues are transferred to state hospitals. However, bed

11

space is very limited, and it can take months for a transfer to occur. See Report of Dr. Jason Roof,

12

page 14 of Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Dr. Jason Roof.

13

B.

'°
0 <Zl °' s:t r- 14
. "'
~a)<!'.°'i--:

Recreation and Exercise ·

f-, -~ &:l f-,::s.,.,ooo

-

-~u~~
O:::oo"''° 15
~ ·en C ~ 0::
0::: ~ E ....i ><
0 ·- ~ W..l <!'. 16
o...:§~f-w..
~""'(I)

0
V)

<Zl

1.

Offers of Exercise
a.

Plaintiffs' Claims

•••.

Plaintiffs' argument in this regard is premised on the Jail currently having only has one

17

exercise area on the roof.

18

currently too decrepit for regular use. Motion at 45:4-5. Therefore, Plaintiffs argue that due to the

19

Jail's lack of usable exercise space and recreation staffing, the Jail cannot make adequate offers of

20

outdoor exercise. Motion at 45:8-10; Stanley Deel. 1120, 30-31.

"'

Motion, 44:26-27. They suggest the Jail's larger recreation area is

21

Due to the limited space, Plaintiffs argue inmates are deprived of outdoor exercise by the

22

County because offers of exercise are made at inconvenient, unappealing, inclement, or otherwise

23

inaccessible times. Motion, 45:13-46:3; Stanley Deel. ,,21-23, 25 -26.

24
25

Plaintiffs further assert the County deprives prisoners of outdoor exercise by declining to
hire recreation staff that is expressly required by the Consent Decree. Motion, 46:22-23.

26

Plaintiffs also argue that Defendants deprive prisoners of adequate exercise due to the lack

27

of exercise equipment. They argued that the Consent Decree expressly requires multiple pieces of

28

mandatory equipment, but the Jail does not provide that equipment. Motion, 46:27-47:6.
(01637631 DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE

60

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 67 of 70

1

0
0

b.

Defendants' Response

2

The Consent Decree states that inmates "shall be offered the opportunity" to use the

3

exercise yard at least 4 times per week for at least two hours each time. See Exhibit B to Appendix

4

of Exhibits, III, p. 5. The terms of the Consent Decree are in excess of state standards, which

5

require a minimum of 3 hours over a 7 day period. The Jail complies with the Consent Decree.

6

See Declaration Regarding Provisions of Consent Decree, ,-r 12; see also Declaration of Jim Sida, ,-r

7

6g. Inmates are given the opportunity for exercise 4 times a week for 2 hours per visit (weather

8

permitting). See Declaration Regarding Provisions of Consent Decree, ,-i 12. Inmates are offered

9

the opportunity for exercise and may decline if they so choose. Id., see also Order E-501, Bates

10

page nos. 9290-9292 of Exhibit C to Appendix of Exhibits. The Jail does not allow one inmate to

11

decline recreation for the entire unit. See Declaration Regarding Operation of the Yuba County

12

Jail, i-120.

13

The Yuba County Jail has two dedicated recreation areas. See Declaration Regarding

14

Operation of the Yuba County Jail, ,-r 20. One is on the "old side" of the Jail, and the other is on

15

the newer side.

0 .:! ~ w

16

monitors other specified housing units. Id. The older exercise yard is not designed that way, and

0 Cll
V)

17

requires a person to maintain in a fixed position in an observation post. Id. As such, the person is

18

not able to perform any other function while performing the assignment of overseeing the

19

recreation yard. Id. Because of the number of inmates, and the higher standard required by the

20

Consent Decree, jail staff begin offering access to the exercise yard at 5 :00 a.m., and continue

21

access until as late as 10/11 p.m. Id. Just because the inmate is asked if he/she wants to participate

22

in outdoor recreation at 5 :00 a.m. does not mean he/she will go out at that time. Id. The purpose of

23

asking is to get an idea how many will be participating; the recreation area is used at later times.

24

Id. The population of the Jail, the number of inmates who cannot access the exercise yard together

25

due to classification, behavioral issues, and the fixed post design of the old yard combine to make

26

compliance with the Consent Decree difficult. Id. It is especially difficult as the segregated

27

inmates are often required to use the exercise yard by themselves, as they cannot be combined

28

with other inmates. Id.

N

V"l

&l -

f--, .~
\D
f--, ::lV)0,:,0
QCll0,"1"t"

-

M

~,.;-<o,:r--:

-,<U~~
~cs~::£
t.l.l 'vi
°'
f--,
...
C 0,

~

<1)

<1)

E

"

...J ~

o.,.:5gf--w..
M

Id. The newer yard is monitored by an officer in a control room, who also

•

{01637631.DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
61

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 68 of 70

1

Recently, the "old jail" recreation area was refurbished and is being used. Id.,

2

has helped with the scheduling of exercise/recreation. Id. The County is considering segregating

3

areas in the new side of the Jail, which would allow for more people to use the recreation area at

4

the same time (i.e., segregated individuals could be divided). Id. There is also being considered to

5

add security cameras to the older exercise yard which would allow for the elimination of a fixed

6

post. Id. That would allow use of the old yard more frequently. Id.

7

In addition, the Jail employs a Recreation Assistant, who is responsible for overseeing all

8

aspects of recreation, including answering question any inmate has about recreation. See

9

Declaration Regarding Provisions of Consent Decree,

f--,
f--, .-:::
:::,

0

~

Cll

•

'°

00
tr) 00 0

°'

'St r--

M

<I'.'.°' r--:

~-<u~~
~:,..,o'°'°
<1)

~ ·~ 'E ~

f--,

...

11)

a::

M

Cll

That person is available to address

both the male and female side of the Jail. Id. In addition, Correctional Officers on duty are

11

available to address exercise and recreation issues. Id.
The Jail does provide the recreation equipment listed in the Consent Decree, as well as

1 12a.

13

other recreation items. See Declaration Regarding Provisions of Consent Decree,

14

only things the Jail does not provide that are listed in the Consent Decree are a weight set and

15

jump ropes. Id. Those are not provided due to security concerns. Id. The Jail has installed fixed

The

....

o~~E...:i><:
·- e r.i..1 <i:: 16
o..:§~E---i:,...
0
.,...

1 12b.

10

12
0
0
N.,...
IU N

1 21. This

exercise equipment to do things such as pull-ups, dips, and sit-up. Id.

17

Ultimately, the Jail meets applicable standards and is complying with the Consent Decree

18

regarding access to Recreation, Education and Exercise programs. See Declaration of Jim Sida,

19

6g.

20

2.

21

Segregation Policies
a.

22

1

Plaintiffs' Claims

Plaintiffs assert segregated prisoners are not given 7 hours of time out-of-the-cell per week,

1 42.

23

let alone 7 hours to spend on exercise. Motion, 48:23-25; Stanley Deel.

24

claimed the County routinely place inmates with mental illness and disabilities in segregation, and

25

inmates in segregation are allowed only a half hour out of their cells per day. Motion, 49:2-4;

26

Stanley Deel. 1 42.

27

II I

28

I II
{01637631 DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE

62

Additionally, it is

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 69 of 70

1

b.

2

0
0
N tr>
<UN

ff- .-:::
00 'Ci
::l,riooO

0

VJ "' '<I" r•

-

!")

IJ.l ·-

f-

~

7 hours out-of-cell time per week for segregated inmates.

4

segregation are provided recreation opportunities (i.e. 2 hours/4 times per week), just like any

5

other inmate, unless there is a safety/security issue. See Declaration Regarding Types and Uses of

6

Cells, 1 9; see also Order C-153 - Assignment to Administrative Segregation, Bates page nos.

7

9117-9118 of Exhibit C to Appendix of Exhibits.
The Jail does not "routinely" place those with mental illness or disability in administrative

9

segregation. See Declaration Regarding Types and Uses of Cells, 1 9. Inmates are placed based on

10

the classification policy. Id.; see also Bates page nos. 9099-9104 of Exhibit C of Appendix of

11

Exhibits. To provide safety and security, a person's physical and/or mental condition is a factor.

12

Id. Placing those with mental illness in administrative segregation to protect the inmate and/or

13

others is an appropriate classification decision, and placing an inmate in administrative

14

segregation does not create an undue risk of harm to that person. See Declaration of Dr. Jason

15

Roof, 14g.

C O' O'
<!)

0::: ~ E

....

...:i ~ 16
e
w-<
o..:§~E---""'
0

Second, those in administrative

8

0 ·Ir)
!")

First, there is no standard, or other evidence, which supports the need for a requirement of

3

~<U<t'.O\r-:

--<u~~
O:::os:£::£:

Defendants' Response

VJ

C.

ICE and Pre-Trial Detainees

17

1.

18

Essentially, it is argued that the same conditions outlined above exist for pre-trial

Plaintiffs' Claims

19

detainees.

20

2.

21

As an initial matter, Defendants note that ICE detainees were not part of the original action

22

or the Consent Decree. Regardless, Plaintiffs' claim with regard to the ICE detainees are identical

23

to those regarding non-ICE detainees, in terms of the constitutional rights that were allegedly

24

violated. Defendants therefore incorporate their arguments, above.

Defendants' Response

25

VIII.

26

CONCLUSION

27

Through their Motion to Enforce, Plaintiffs impermissibly attempt to expand the scope of

28

the Consent Decree and the Jail's obligations thereunder. Although couched in terms of an
{01637631.DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE
63

 Case 2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB Document 180 Filed 01/18/17 Page 70 of 70

1

enforcement motion, what Plaintiffs are actually attempting to do is force Defendants to do things

2

that the Consent Decree does not require. A Motion to Enforce is not the proper procedural

3

mechanism to impose new obligations on Defendants. This is particularly true given the

4

applicability of the PLRA to Plaintiffs' requested remedies. Since Plaintiffs have not complied

5

with the exhaustion requirements of the PLRA, their Motion must be denied.

6

More fundamentally, Plaintiffs' Motion must be denied because the Yuba County Jail

7

complies with the Consent Decree and applicable detention standards. Defendants' evidence

8

establishes that Yuba County maintains policies, practices and procedures that meet, and in many

9

cases, far exceed, the terms of the Consent Decree. Defendants' evidence also establishes that

10

these policies, practices, and procedures meet all applicable standards and do not place the inmates

11

at an increased risk of harm. Therefore, Plaintiffs have failed to show that Defendants' policies,

12

practices, and/or procedures amount to deliberate indifference of their rights. Thus, there is no

13

legal basis to support the imposition of new obligations, either through an enforcement motion or

- ""
--<u~~
~02:£:£

14

under a request for remedial orders under the PLRA.

~ ~ E ...i X
0 ·- E: ~ <\'.'.

16

0
0
N

lf"\

f-< -~ &:l - "'
r<::llf"\000
QCllO\-.:tt-

.

~Q)<\'.'.°'r-:

U.l ·- C 0\ 0\
f-<~"-' ....

p.,5~f-.,..
0 C/l
lf"\

""

15

For all of the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that Plaintiffs' Motion to
Enforce the Consent Decree and For Further Remedial Orders be denied.

17
18

Respectfully submitted,
PORTER SCOTT

Dated: January 17, 2017

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

19
By

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ls/Carl L. Fessenden
Carl L. Fessenden
John R. Whitefleet
Ashley M. Wisniewski
Ryan P. O'Connor
Attorneys for Defendants
JAMES GRANT, FRED J. ASBY,
JAMES PHARRIS, ROY
LANDERMAN, DOUG WALTZ,
HAROLD J. "SAM" SPERBEK, and
JAMES MARTIN

27
28
{01637631.DOCX}

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE

64