Yuba County, jail inmates’ attorneys reach agreement to improve conditions
Requirements include improvements to available mental health services
Yuba County and attorneys representing jail inmates reached an agreement Thursday to improve conditions and services in the jail.
The agreement comes in the form of an amended consent decree stemming from a 1976 lawsuit and an original decree that came three years later, according to a joint press release. The amended decree must now be approved by a federal court before it goes into effect, and will terminate in four years if nothing has changed (though it can be extended if the plaintiffs believe the county is not in compliance).
The county has now agreed: to conduct a review and do remediation of suicide hazards; to improve its medical and mental health care; to increase mental health care staffing; to update policies on the use of safety cells, especially for inmates in mental health crisis; to provide more access to exercise, recreation and out-of-cell time for all prisoners, and particularly for those in administrative segregation; to improve detoxification protocols; and to provide access to inpatient psychiatric care when needed, according to the press release. All prisoners entering the jail will now be evaluated by medical, not correctional staff.
Yuba County made clear it does not agree that the conditions of the jail fall below legal requirements, but recognized it was in the best interest of both parties to reach an agreement.
In November 2016, attorneys representing all Yuba County Jail prisoners (Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfield of San Francisco and the UC Davis School of Law) filed two motions in federal court for the county to enforce an original 1979 decree and further remedial orders, as well as a complaint under the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to the release.
The county filed a motion in May 2013, saying the decree, which governs jail conditions and stemmed from a 1976 classaction lawsuit on behalf of inmates, was no longer relevant to jail conditions today, according to Appeal-democrat archives. In April 2014, a Sacramento federal judge disagreed, saying the county “failed to carry (its) ‘burden ... to demonstrate that there are no ongoing constitutional violations, that the relief ordered exceeds what is necessary to correct an ongoing constitutional violation, or both.’” In May 2016, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal upheld the judge’s decision.
The 1976 litigation remained mostly dormant from 1979 until 2014, when the two law offices joined the cause, Mike Freedman of Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfield said Friday.
“It was then sort of reinvigorated,” he said.
The groups will request the county cover attorney’s fees, but there is no other monetary settlement tied to the litigation.
The Yuba County Sheriff’s Office pointed to the joint press release in a request for comment. Yuba County counsel could not be reached.
AND
Business hours: Monday-friday, 8 a.m.-5 p.m. Main number .................... Steve Miller ...................... Andrew Cummins .............
Jake Abbott ...................... Veronica Catlin ................. Patrick Groves .................. Chris Kaufman ................. Ruby Larson ..................... Randi Love ....................... Rachel Rosenbaum ...........
Andy Arrenquin ................ Sports scores ....................
Chris Kaufman, Editor .......