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
On May
20, 2019, the Court ordered Defendants to “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 the pretrial detainee’s mental
health are received and considered.” (Doc. 2500 at 3.)
The Order stated, “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. at 2.) Before the Court are Defendants’
report of compliance with the May 20, 2019 Order,
Plaintiffs’ response, and Defendants’ reply.
(Docs. 2519, 2520, 2523.)[1]
Also
before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion to Modify the
Revised Fourth Amended Judgment Under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b)(5) and for Further Relief (Doc. 2521) and
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Schedule of Presentation of
Evidence of Current Conditions (Doc. 2522).
I.
BACKGROUND
Pretrial
detainees held in the Maricopa County Jails brought this
class action in 1977 against the Maricopa County Sheriff and
the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors seeking injunctive
relief for alleged violations of their civil rights. In 1981,
the parties entered into a consent decree that addressed and
regulated aspects of the County jail operations as they
applied to pretrial detainees. In 1995, upon stipulation of
the parties, the 1981 consent decree was superseded by the
Amended Judgment. The stipulated Amended Judgment expressly
did not represent a judicial determination of any
constitutionally mandated standards applicable to the
Maricopa County Jails.
In
November 2003, Defendants renewed a prior motion to terminate
the Amended Judgment, an evidentiary hearing was initiated,
and the parties engaged in further discovery, but the motion
was not decided. On April 3, 2008, the case was assigned to
the undersigned judge. On April 25, 2008, Defendants’
motion to terminate the Amended Judgment was set for
evidentiary hearing commencing August 12, 2008. In August and
September 2008, a thirteen-day evidentiary hearing was held
to decide whether prospective relief in the Amended Judgment
should be continued, modified, or terminated. On October 22,
2008, the Court made detailed findings of fact and
conclusions of law and entered the Second Amended Judgment.
Certain provisions of the Amended Judgment were found to
remain necessary to correct a current and ongoing violation
of a federal right, to extend no further than necessary to
correct the violation of the federal right, to be narrowly
drawn, and to be the least intrusive means to correct the
violation. Other provisions were modified or vacated based on
the evidence presented. The provisions remaining in effect,
as originally written or as modified, were restated in the
Second Amended Judgment.
In
addition, on October 22, 2008, the Court ordered the parties
to confer immediately regarding prompt compliance and to
submit status reports. A status conference was held on
December 5, 2008. On January 9, 2009, a hearing was held
regarding Defendants’ progress toward compliance with
the nonmedical portions of the Second Amended Judgment. On
January 28, 2009, upon stipulation of the parties, the Court
appointed a medical expert and a mental health expert to
serve as independent evaluators of Defendants’
compliance with the medical and mental health provisions of
the Second Amended Judgment. In June 2009, the Court began
receiving quarterly reports from the experts. By April 2010,
the Court concluded that “significant areas of failure
to comply with the Second Amended Judgment’s medical
and mental health requirements remain” and ordered the
parties to jointly “develop a proposed procedure for
achieving and demonstrating Defendants’ complete
compliance with the Second Amended Judgment.” (Doc.
1880 at 3–4.) In the April 7, 2010 Order, the Court
stated: “The Court’s purpose is to set a
procedure by which full compliance with the Second Amended
Judgment is either confirmed or specific implementing
remedies are ordered and complied with by the end of this
calendar year.” (Id. at 4.)
In
January 2011, the parties reported Defendants’
disagreement with two of the independent evaluators’
recommendations, but in June 2011 the parties jointly
reported that an evidentiary hearing regarding medical and
mental health remedies was not necessary. On June 7, 2011,
Defendants filed a motion to terminate the nonmedical
provisions of the Second Amended Judgment. On October 12,
2011, the parties stipulated that certain nonmedical
provisions should be terminated and others should remain in
effect without an evidentiary hearing. The stipulation stated
that Defendants would renew the motion to terminate the
remaining nonmedical provisions after April 1, 2012, and that
Plaintiffs would not contest the renewed motion if Defendants
successfully accomplished certain goals for the period
November 1, 2011, through March 1, 2012.
On
April 24, 2012, Defendants moved to terminate the remaining
nonmedical provisions of the Second Amended Judgment, and
Plaintiffs did not oppose the motion. On May 24, 2012,
Defendants’ motion was granted, and those provisions of
the Second Amended Judgment that remained in effect were
restated in the Third Amended Judgment.
In
October 2012, the independent evaluators visited the jails,
conducted interviews, and reviewed medical records. In
January 2013, the evaluators reported that Defendants had
made significant progress toward compliance with the Third
Amended Judgment, and the evaluators provided specific
recommendations for achieving substantial compliance. In June
2013, Defendants filed a status report describing their
efforts to address the evaluators’ concerns and
identified certain recommendations with which they disagreed.
In response, Plaintiffs identified recommendations for which
Defendants had not shown evidence of compliance and also
challenged the accuracy of some of Defendants’
assertions about their compliance with the evaluators’
recommendations.
On
August 9, 2013, Defendants moved to terminate the Third
Amended Judgment. The Court ordered that for evidence to be
relevant to the motion, it must tend to show whether any
current and ongoing constitutional violation existed on
August 9, 2013. In addition to filing briefs and statements
of facts with supporting exhibits, the parties presented
evidence and argument for six days in February and March
2014.
On
September 30, 2014, the Court made detailed findings of fact
and conclusions of law regarding whether and to what extent
prospective relief in the Third Amended Judgment should be
terminated. In many instances, Defendants demonstrated they
had recently adopted or revised policies and procedures
designed to correct deficiencies identified by the
independent evaluators and/or Plaintiffs, but they were
unable to produce evidence that the revised policies and
procedures had been fully and consistently implemented or
that the identified systemic deficiencies had been corrected.
Because Defendants did not prove compliance with any of the
three substantive paragraphs of the Third Amended Judgment,
i.e., sufficient screening at intake, ready access
to care for serious medical and mental health needs, and
continuity of prescription medications, the Court found that
the prospective relief ordered in those three paragraphs
remained necessary to correct current and ongoing
constitutional violations.
Also on
September 30, 2014, after six years of reviewing evidence,
expert opinion, and legal argument regarding conditions in
the Maricopa County Jails, and after allowing both parties
opportunity to propose remedies to correct constitutional
deficiencies, the Court ordered remedies that did not exactly
track constitutional standards but were practical, concrete
measures necessary to correct constitutional violations.
Defendants were ordered to, within 60 days, adopt new
policies or amend existing policies regarding 31 specific
requirements for providing medical and mental health care,
implement the policies within 150 days, collect and summarize
compliance data for a period of 180 days after implementation
of the policies, and report documentation showing completion
of each stage. The Court stated, “If Defendants comply
with this Order and its deadlines, within one year they will
demonstrate that prospective relief no longer remains
necessary to correct any current and ongoing violation of
Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, and Court-ordered
relief may be terminated before the [Prison Litigation Reform
Act (“PLRA”)] permits another motion to
terminate.” (Doc. 2283 at 59-60.)
Therefore,
Paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of the Revised Fourth Amended
Judgment[2]continued the prospective relief in the
Third Amended Judgment, and Paragraph 5 of the Revised Fourth
Amended Judgment defined specifically how Defendants would
prove their compliance with Paragraphs 2, 3, and 4. Paragraph
5(a) identified the 31 specific requirements for providing
medical and mental health care that were expected to become
institutionalized through appropriate policies, staffing,
training, and monitoring.
In
January 2015, the Court clarified that Plaintiffs’
counsel were permitted to tour the jail facilities, speak
with pretrial detainees and staff, review records on-site,
and review copies of records off-site upon reasonable
request. It further stated that the Revised Fourth Amended
Judgment “requires Defendants to meet a series of
deadlines and anticipates that Plaintiffs will promptly bring
to the Court’s attention any perceived lack of
compliance with each requirement.” (Doc. 2309.)
In
September 2015, Defendants reported the data they had
collected and summarized pursuant to the Revised Fourth
Amended Judgment. On October 15, 2015, the Court granted
Plaintiffs’ request that they be permitted to file
their response to Defendants’ compliance reports by
January 15, 2016. The Court further ordered that
Plaintiffs’ response address only whether Defendants
had demonstrated compliance with Paragraph 5 of the Revised
Fourth Amended Judgment related to each of the 31
subparagraphs of Paragraph 5(a). Plaintiffs moved for
reconsideration of that order, requesting opportunity for
Plaintiffs and their experts to review individual medical
records off-site and to conduct a site visit at the jail to
review medical records. The Court granted Plaintiffs’
motion for reconsideration to the extent that
Plaintiffs’ counsel and their medical experts were
permitted to review individual medical records on-site within
certain limitations, Defendants were permitted to produce
paper copies of some of the requested records, and
Plaintiffs’ time to respond to Defendants’
compliance reports was extended to February 26, 2016. The
Court further ordered that Plaintiffs’ records review
would focus on the accuracy of Defendants’ compliance
reports and the significance of any lack of compliance. The
Court explained:
To clarify, at this stage of the litigation, the question is
not whether the remedies ordered have in fact resolved the
previously found systemic deficiencies, but whether the
remedies have been implemented consistently enough. What is
“enough” is context-specific. The Court has
already determined that adequate compliance with the specific
standards previously stated will meet minimum constitutional
standards. The Court will not go behind those determinations
in the current proceedings, and Plaintiffs will not be
granted discovery to attempt to argue and prove some other
measure of constitutional requirements. This case has always
been about systemic failures amounting to constitutional
violations. Proof of some individual failures does not
establish systemic constitutional failures, and discovery
regarding mere individual failures is not warranted.
In its September 30, 2014 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law, the Court explained that because Defendants had not
shown they had resolved certain systemic deficiencies after
six years, it was necessary for the Court to craft remedies
to correct constitutional violations. (Doc. 2283 at 6.) After
giving Plaintiffs and Defendants opportunity to propose and
debate specific remedies, the Court ordered “remedies
that do not exactly track constitutional standards but that
are practical measures necessary to correct constitutional
violations.” (Id. at 59.) Each remedy was
intentionally written to provide a clear standard by which
compliance could be decided even though the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments do not demand a particular action.
Therefore, the Court will evaluate Defendants’
compliance with the 31 subparagraphs of Paragraph 5(a) of the
Revised Fourth Amended Judgment exactly as they are written.
However, Plaintiffs are not required to accept as true
Defendants’ assertions about their compliance. They are
entitled to examine how data were collected, whether the
reported data were relevant to the ordered remedy, and
whether the data show sufficient compliance.
(Doc. 2352.)
Plaintiffs’
time to respond to Defendants’ compliance reports was
further extended to April 1, 2016. In addition to filing a
response, Plaintiffs also filed a motion requesting the Court
to order additional specific relief regarding Paragraph 3 of
the Revised Fourth Amended Judgment. Subsequently, Plaintiffs
moved for an evidentiary hearing to resolve factual disputes
related to Paragraph 5 and their motion to enforce Paragraph
3.
On
March 1, 2017, the Court found that Defendants had
demonstrated compliance with 21 of the 31 specific
requirements and had not yet demonstrated compliance with the
10 remaining requirements. (Doc. 2404.) The Court ordered
Defendants to collect and summarize data for the months of
April, May, and June 2017 that showed the extent to which
Defendants had complied with the 10 remaining requirements.
The Court ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding
Defendants’ plan for demonstrating compliance. The
Court further ordered that Plaintiffs’ counsel and
experts were permitted to tour the Maricopa County Jails,
speak with pretrial detainees and staff, and review records
related to the 10 remaining requirements.
On
March 1, 2017, the Court also denied Plaintiffs’ motion
requesting another evidentiary hearing because the Second
Amended Judgment, the Third Amended Judgment, and the Revised
Fourth Amended Judgment were based on detailed evidentiary
findings and only after the Court concluded that specific
relief extended no further than necessary to correct the
violation of the federal right, it was narrowly drawn, and it
was the least intrusive means to correct the violation.
Specific constitutional deficiencies had been identified, and
specific remedies tailored to address those deficiencies had
been ordered. In the same March 1, 2017 Order, the Court
denied Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the Revised Fourth
Amended Judgment, which essentially asked the Court to
reconsider its 2014 findings and conclusions regarding
termination of the Third Amended Judgment and order
additional injunctive relief. (Doc. 2404.)
In July
through September 2017, Defendants reported summaries of
their compliance data and produced to Plaintiffs the raw data
summarized in the compliance reports. In December 2017,
Plaintiffs filed a response to Defendants’ compliance
reports, a motion to enforce the Revised Fourth Amended
Judgment and for additional relief, and a motion to re-open
discovery and for a scheduling order. In June 2018, oral
argument was heard on Defendants’ compliance reports
and all pending motions, Defendants’ were granted leave
to supplement their compliance reports regarding 2 of the 10
remaining requirements. Plaintiffs were granted leave to
conduct additional discovery, and their time to respond was
extended.
On
August 22, 2018, the Court found that Defendants had
demonstrated compliance with 7 of the 10 remaining
requirements, and determination of compliance with 2 of the
remaining requirements was pending. (Doc. 2483.) Thus, the
final remedy ordered by the Revised Fourth Amended Judgment
to be addressed was subparagraph (26) of Paragraph 5(a) of
the Revised Fourth Amended Judgment, which 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 have
demonstrated compliance with subparagraph (26) of Paragraph
5(a) of the Revised Fourth Amended Judgment except to the
extent that further evidence is required concerning instances
of disciplinary isolation.” (Id. at 38.) The
Court further 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. at 39.)
In its
August 22, 2018 Order, the Court also denied
Plaintiffs’ motions to enforce the Revised Fourth
Amended Judgment and for additional relief and to re-open
discovery and for a scheduling order. The Court explained
that Plaintiffs essentially sought reconsideration of
previous orders and disregarded “the fact that the
Court already assessed the existence of constitutional
violations; considered the parties’ proposed remedies;
ordered specific remedies; provided Plaintiffs extensive
access to the Jails’ records, pretrial ...