Hernandez v. County of Monterey
110 F. Supp. 3d 929
N.D. Cal.2015Background
- Plaintiffs (a certified class of Monterey County Jail inmates and a disabilities subclass) challenged systemic deficiencies in jail medical, mental-health, safety, and disability-accommodation practices following neutral-expert inspections identifying substantial risks (TB screening failures; medication continuity problems; inadequate withdrawal protocols; suicide hazards in segregation; inaccessible program locations; no sign-language interpreter provision).
- Parties initially cooperated to retain four neutral experts (security, medical, mental health, ADA/access) whose reports documented widespread policy, staffing, procedural, and physical-plant deficiencies posing substantial risk of serious harm.
- Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction seeking targeted remedial measures (CDC-consistent TB program and intake screening; clinician-led withdrawal and continuity-of-medication protocols; removal of hanging points and 30-minute unpredictable welfare checks in segregation; an ADA tracking system; accessible program locations; provision and documentation of qualified sign-language interpreters).
- Defendants (County and its contractor, CFMG) disputed some factual findings and argued discretion under CDC guidelines, staffing/cost burdens, and emphasis on individualized clinical decisionmaking rather than blanket rules; they claimed some interim policy changes addressed ADA concerns.
- The magistrate judge found Plaintiffs likely to succeed on the merits across the challenged conditions, that irreparable harm was likely without relief, that the balance of hardships and public interest favored injunctive relief, and granted the preliminary injunction requiring a 60‑day remedial plan and monitoring rights for Plaintiffs (bond waived).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| TB screening & control | Jail policies and practices (officer intake screening, delayed/limited skin testing, lack of isolation and tracking) violate constitutional standards by creating substantial TB risk and showing deliberate indifference | County says local TB incidence was low, CDC guidelines allow discretion, and state regulations/Title 15 compliance defend practices | Court: Plaintiffs likely to succeed; CDC-consistent TB program, clinician symptom screening at intake, tracking and timely testing/isolation required |
| Suicide & self-harm in segregation | Housing seriously mentally ill in administrative segregation, presence of hanging points, and only hourly predictable checks create substantial risk and deliberate indifference | Defendants emphasize need for individualized clinical decisions and dispute statistical evidence | Court: Plaintiffs likely to succeed; ordered removal of hanging points and health/safety checks at least every 30 minutes at irregular times |
| Withdrawal management & medication continuity | Intake screening by custody, nurse-driven or nonvalidated withdrawal protocols, single protocol for all substances, and failure to continue community meds cause serious medical risk | Defendants claim policies and nursing practices comply with state rules and deny scope of failures | Court: Plaintiffs likely to succeed; ordered clinician-led evaluations, validated CIWA or equivalent monitoring, separate protocols for types of withdrawal, and timely continuation/bridge of community medications |
| ADA access & sign-language interpreters | Jail denies programmatic access to inmates who cannot climb stairs and provides no sign-language interpreters, violating Title II and resulting in exclusion from exercise, classes, religious services, and critical communications | Defendants point to recent policy changes and new interpreter contract to argue mootness or remediation | Court: Changes insufficient; Plaintiffs likely to succeed; ordered tracking system for disabilities, accessible program locations, provision and documentation of qualified interpreters |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunctions)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference standard in prison medical/safety claims)
- Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993) (prison officials cannot ignore conditions likely to cause future serious harm)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs)
- Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981) (constitutional limits on conditions of confinement)
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (irreparable harm and public interest factors for injunctive relief)
- Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2001) (Title II application and remedy process for correctional facilities)
- Pierce v. County of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2008) (ADA obligations in jail settings)
- Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (‘‘sliding scale’’ and alternative preliminary injunction standard)
- Farris v. Seabrook, 677 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2012) (alternative test for preliminary injunctions in Ninth Circuit)