United States District Court, D. Arizona
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, Jack Sellers, Steve Chucri, and Clint L. Hickman, Maricopa County Supervisors, Defendants.
ORDER
Neil
V. Wake Senior United States District Judge
Before
the Court are the parties' proposed plans for Defendants
to demonstrate compliance with the sole remaining requirement
of the Revised Fourth Amended Judgment, which was entered on
September 30, 2014. (Docs. 2497, 2498.) [1]
Subparagraph
(26) of Paragraph 5(a) of the Revised Fourth Amended Judgment
states: “Defendants will adopt and implement a written
policy requiring that mental health staff be consulted
regarding discipline of any seriously mentally ill pretrial
detainee.” (Doc. 2299 at 6.) On August 22, 2018, the
Court found:
Defendants have generally shown compliance with subparagraph
5(a)(26), but not for consultation concerning disciplinary
isolation. Defendants will be ordered to propose how they
will demonstrate that before a seriously mentally ill
pretrial detainee is placed in disciplinary isolation, CHS
mental health staff are consulted and their recommendations
addressing the potential effects of isolation on the pretrial
detainee's mental health are received and considered.
(Doc. 2483 at 35.) The Court 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. 2483 at 39.)
On
January 15, 2019, the Court rejected Defendants' proposed
plan for demonstrating compliance and directed Defendants to:
. . . come up with a process and contemporaneous record
keeping that will show for a three-month period: all pretrial
detainees for whom a DAR was issued for possible disciplinary
isolation, which of them had been designated as seriously
mentally ill, whether CHS mental health staff was consulted
for each, the content of each consultation or recommendation,
and whether disciplinary segregation was imposed or sanctions
were suspended. The report should explain how sanctions
proposed by MCSO were communicated to CHS, that consultations
with CHS mental health staff occurred, and that
recommendations by CHS mental health staff were considered by
MCSO. The plan and the report pursuant to it should explain
how these communications were documented and how the evidence
of the communications was collected.
(Doc. 2493 at 8.) The Court reminded the parties that
“the purpose of subparagraph 5(a)(26) was to articulate
a minimum constitutional measure of disciplinary isolation of
seriously mentally ill detainees.” (Id. at 7.)
Defendants are not required to prove compliance with each
term of their adopted policies and procedures, but must
produce objective proof that mental health staff are
consulted and such consultation reaches disciplinary
decision-makers, at least as a general matter, before
disciplinary isolation is imposed. (Id.)
On May
3, 2019, after exchanging proposed plans and conferring, the
parties filed separate proposals for demonstrating
compliance. (Docs. 2497, 2498.) On May 16, 2019, the Court
heard oral argument regarding the proposals. Upon
consideration of the parties' briefing and additional
information provided during oral argument, the Court will
order a compliance plan through which Defendants will
“demonstrate that before a seriously mentally ill
pretrial detainee is placed in disciplinary isolation, CHS
mental health staff are consulted and their recommendations
addressing the potential effects of isolation on the pretrial
detainee's mental health are received and
considered.”
IT IS
THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1. The
MCSO Hearing Unit will collect all DARs created in April,
May, and June 2019 for detainees designated SMI or MHCC that
resulted in the detainee being placed in disciplinary
isolation.
2. The
MCSO Hearing Unit will collect the email communications
between CHS mental health staff and MCSO regarding each of
the DARs created in April, May, and June 2019 for detainees
designated SMI or MHCC that resulted in the detainee being
placed in disciplinary isolation.
3. The
MCSO Hearing Unit will collect the consultation/override
forms documenting final determinations made by the Custody
Bureau Hearing Unit Commander.
4.
Defendants will produce to Plaintiffs all DARs created in
April, May, and June 2019 for detainees designated SMI or
MHCC that resulted in the detainee being placed in
disciplinary isolation with the related email communications
...