Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Graves v. Arpaio

United States District Court, D. Arizona

December 10, 2014

Fred Graves, Isaac Popoca, on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of all pretrial detainees in the Maricopa County Jails, Plaintiffs,
v.
Joseph Arpaio, Sheriff of Maricopa County; Andrew Kunasek, Mary Rose Wilcox, Denny Barney, Steve Chucri, and Clint L. Hickman, Maricopa County Supervisors, Defendants.

ORDER

NEIL V. WAKE, District Judge.

Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 2287) of five remedial provisions of the Fourth Amended Judgment (Doc. 2284). Having considered briefing by both sides, the Court will revise one paragraph of the Fourth Amended Judgment. The deadlines imposed by the Fourth Amended Judgment are not changed.

1. Timely Provider Assessments of Seriously Ill. Detainees at Intake (¶ 5(a)(2))

Paragraph 5(a)(2) of the Fourth Amended Judgment states:

If the receiving screening indicates a pretrial detainee is suffering from a serious acute or chronic health condition, a physician, physician assistant, or nurse practitioner will conduct a face-to-face examination of the pretrial detainee within 24 hours after the receiving screening.

Plaintiffs request that paragraph 5(a)(2) be modified as shown in italics:

If the receiving screening indicates a pretrial detainee is suffering from a serious acute or chronic health condition, a physician, physician assistant, or nurse practitioner will conduct a face-to-face examination of the pretrial detainee on an emergency or urgent basis, no longer than within 24 hours after the receiving screening.
The Court found that Defendants had not met their burden of proving that "as of August 9, 2013, pretrial detainees who presented with serious medical health needs at intake consistently were timely seen face-to-face by a medical provider." (Doc. 2283, ¶ 40.) The Court also found, "When the receiving screening identifies a pretrial detainee as having a serious acute or chronic medical condition, in most cases the pretrial detainee should be seen by a medical provider on an emergency or urgent basis, no later than within 24 hours." ( Id., ¶ 31.)

Plaintiffs' primary criticism has been that pretrial detainees who need to be seen by a provider often are not seen face-to-face by a provider quickly enough to provide timely diagnosis and/or treatment. As currently worded, paragraph 5(a)(2) requires Defendants to prove that these pretrial detainees are actually seen by a provider with an outer limit of 24 hours. This requires that Defendants have a sufficient number of qualified providers available to actually see pretrial detainees within 24 hours, which often will occur while the pretrial detainees are in the intake center before they are transported to a housing unit. Adding the phrase "on an emergency or urgent basis" does not ensure that a pretrial detainee who needs to be seen by a medical provider within minutes will be seen within minutes, not hours.

2. Tuberculosis Screening (¶ 5(a)(7))

Paragraph 5(a)(7) of the Fourth Amended Judgment states:

Pretrial detainees will be tested for tuberculosis within 14 days after the receiving screening unless they have been tested with negative results within the past year.

Plaintiffs request that paragraph 5(a)(7) be replaced with the following provision:

At the time of the receiving screening, pretrial detainees will be screened for tuberculosis using tuberculin skin testing, interferon-gamma release assays, ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.