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. Penzone

United States District Court, D. Arizona

January 15, 2019

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.
Paul Penzone, Sheriff of Maricopa County; Bill Gates, Steve Gallardo, Denny Barney, Steve Chucri, and Clint L. Hickman, Maricopa County Supervisors, Defendants.

          ORDER

          Neil V. Wake Senior United States District Judge

         Before the Court are:

         (1) Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Amended/Corrected Expert Report (Doc. 2490), the response (Doc. 2491), and the reply (Doc. 2492);

         (2) Defendants' Supplemental Report Regarding Corrective Actions, Compliance Data Collection Procedures, and Compliance Data Summaries for April, May, and June 2017 (Doc. 2473), the response (Doc. 2484), and the reply (Doc. 2487); and

         (3) Defendants' Proposed Plan for Demonstrating Compliance Regarding Subparagraph 5(a)(26) of Revised Fourth Amended Judgment (Doc. 2485), the response (Doc. 2488), and the reply (Doc. 2489).

         I. BACKGROUND

         The Revised Fourth Amended Judgment was entered on September 30, 2014, and ordered specific remedies to correct constitutional deficiencies, which included adopting or amending policies to satisfy 31 specific requirements for providing medical and mental health care, implementing the policies, and demonstrating implementation of the policies. (Doc. 2299.) On March 1, 2017, the Court found that Defendants had demonstrated compliance with 21 of the 31 specific requirements but had not yet demonstrated compliance with the remaining 10 requirements. (Doc. 2404.) On August 22, 2018, the Court found that Defendants had demonstrated compliance with 7 of the 10 remaining specific requirements. (Doc. 2483.) The Court granted Defendants' request to submit supplemental briefing regarding subparagraphs (22) and (23) of Paragraph 5(a) of the Revised Fourth Amended Judgment and ordered Defendants to file a proposed plan for demonstrating compliance with subparagraph (26) of Paragraph 5(a) of the Revised Fourth Amended Judgment concerning instances of disciplinary isolation. (Id.)

         II. TERMS

MCSO: Maricopa County Sheriff's Office
CHS: Correctional Health Services
SMI: Seriously Mentally Ill. as identified by community health providers
MHCC: Mental Health Chronic Care, as identified by
CHS TechCare: CHS's electronic medical records program
Operation Journal: MCSO's electronic records program

         Speed letter: a communication from CHS to MCSO regarding planned involuntary treatment or action with assistance from MCSO if force is needed

         DAR: Disciplinary Action Report

         III. PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED/CORRECTED EXPERT REPORT (DOC. 2490)

         Plaintiffs submitted an expert report with their response to Defendants' Supplemental Report (Doc. 2473) regarding subparagraphs 5(a)(22) and (23). Defendants subsequently identified errors in the expert report, which included Plaintiffs' expert's omission of 16 planned use-of-force incidents and his assertion that Defendants had failed to produce one incident report. Plaintiffs seek leave to file a corrected report that includes the 16 incidents, concede Defendants had produced the one report, and do not address Defendants' other objections. Defendants object to Plaintiffs filing a corrected expert report because it provides Plaintiffs' expert additional ...


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.