Parties Announce Preliminary Comprehensive Settlement in Federal Class Action Lawsuit Over Conditions at Monterey County Jail
SALINAS, CALIFORNIA - Lawyers for all parties in Hernandez v. County of Monterey announced today that they have reached a preliminary comprehensive settlement in the class action lawsuit filed in May 2013 in federal court in San Jose regarding conditions at the Monterey County Jail. The settlement was approved by the Monterey County Board of Supervisors, California Forensic Medical Group (CFMG), the Monterey County Public Defender, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the law firm of Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld. The settlement is subject to approval by U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal after notice to the class and a fairness hearing.
Plaintiffs are prisoners in the custody of the Monterey County Sheriff’s Office; defendants are the County of Monterey, Monterey County Sheriff’s Office, and CFMG.
Under the settlement agreement, the defendants deny any liability, and state that prior to and since the initiation of this litigation, the County of Monterey, Monterey County Sheriff’s Office, and CFMG had commenced initiatives to enhance the delivery of mental health services and medical care, improve the safety of the Monterey County Jail and improve jail and program accessibility.
“The settlement will benefit inmates and improve public safety, which will benefit Monterey County as a whole,” says Simon Salinas, Chair of the Monterey County Board of Supervisors. “We have been improving conditions at the jail since before the lawsuit was originally filed, and this settlement provides a great opportunity to build on those improvements through collaboration rather than litigation,” adds Monterey County Sheriff Steve Bernal. “The settlement clears the way for us to complete our jail modernization work.”
“We are proud of the high quality and compassionate care we have provided to the inmates of the Monterey County Jail for more than 31 years. The settlement agreement acknowledges that we and the county have continually enhanced services, including increased staffing, in recognition of rising healthcare demands and our desire to do right by inmates and their families,” said Elaine Hustedt, co-founder and Chief Operating Officer of CFMG.
“Public defenders have a duty under California law to address their clients’ conditions of confinement,” says Monterey County Public Defender Jim Egar. “By continuing to work with us on this settlement, the county will continue to rapidly improve our clients’ conditions of confinement, without the delay and expense of a civil trial.”
According to the terms of the agreement, by October 15, 2015, plaintiffs and defendants will develop a series of implementation plans to enhance services at the Monterey County Jail. The parties have agreed to retain experts as neutral monitors for a limited term of oversight.
“All sides have come together in a very positive and constructive way to bring about positive change for our clients,” says co-lead counsel for plaintiffs Michael Bien, a partner with Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld in San Francisco. “We specifically look forward to working with the county to ensure that prisoners with disabilities can participate fully in proven programs that reduce recidivism and improve public safety,” said Bien.
“We are very hopeful that the changes long underway in Monterey will have immediate and lasting benefits for the public, as well as for our clients,” says co-counsel Alan Schlosser of the ACLU of Northern California. The prisoner class is also represented by the ACLU’s National Prison Project in Washington, D.C. “The human costs of jail overcrowding are a pressing problem nationwide,” says National Prison Project counsel Eric Balaban.
Added Taylor Fithian, MD, co-founder and president of CFMG: “I have been caring for inmates at the Monterey County Jail almost every day for more than 31 years, and I am glad to resolve this matter so we can continue that good work.”
For more information and case documents, go to:
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Prisoners' Rights
Criminal Law Reform
ACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law AllowsACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law Allows
WASHINGTON – A federal lawsuit brought today by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., and Jenner & Block LLP challenges the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for unlawfully incarcerating people longer than the law allows under the First Step Act. The lawsuit contends that the BOP’s failure to implement the First Step Act according to its plain language violates the rights of thousands of people who should be returning to their communities and rebuilding their lives but instead remain incarcerated. Signed into law in 2018 by then-President Donald Trump, the bipartisan First Step Act was designed to reduce the population in federal prisons, reform extreme sentencing laws, and provide programming and reentry transition services to people in prison. Central to the First Step Act is a system of earned time credits, which allows people in prison to earn time off their sentences and time out of prison by participating in rehabilitation programs. Through the First Step Act, Congress unambiguously ordered BOP to move people out of prison when they meet certain requirements to use their earned time credits. Instead of faithfully following the mandatory law, BOP adopted a regulation treating the law as optional. As a result, thousands of people, who should already be back in their communities and with their families, remain in prison. “Every extra unlawful day our clients spend in prison is a serious injustice,” said Emma Andersson, deputy director of the Criminal Law Reform Project at the ACLU. “It is egregious that the Bureau of Prisons is imprisoning people for months longer than the law allows. The government must follow through on its legal obligation to get people out of prison on time and back into their communities, where they belong.” Additional comments below from: Vanessa Crowe, plaintiff: “Time is what I owed for my wrongdoing, and I have paid my time. But I should not have to spend more time in prison than the law allows. I often reflect on what I will miss during the months after when I should be out of prison. I will miss work and lose out on wages that would help me get back on my feet. I could be a tax paying citizen instead of a burden on society. But most of all, I will miss more precious time with my family. My family and I are ready to tum the page on this period in our lives — we are all ready to start a new life, a life with purpose, hope, and healing together. I want to start that life when I am legally entitled to start it-not five months later.” Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at ACLU of D.C.: “There’s no excuse for the Bureau of Prisons to pretend not to understand Congress’s clear command that people who have earned the right to early release must be released. This law has been on the books for six years. The Bureau of Prisons has had plenty of time to understand it. Law enforcers should obey the law.” Betsy Henthorne, partner at Jenner & Block: “It has been six years since the First Step Act was signed, but despite Congress’s clear directives, the Bureau of Prisons continues to hold thousands of people in prison longer than the law allows. We should and do expect better—it’s past time for the BOP to ensure that those who have earned their release are able to return home to their families and communities according to the law Congress passed.” -
Press ReleaseSep 2024
National Security
Prisoners' Rights
ACLU Statement on Senator’s Discriminatory Questioning of Civil Rights Leader Maya BerryACLU Statement on Senator’s Discriminatory Questioning of Civil Rights Leader Maya Berry
WASHINGTON — American Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Anthony D. Romero, released the following statement regarding Sen. John Kennedy’s questioning of Maya Berry, the executive director of the Arab American Institute: “The American Civil Liberties Union condemns this discriminatory and vitriolic attack on Maya Berry, a renowned civil rights leader, and joins the chorus of voices from across the political spectrum in denouncing these remarks. “To use a hearing about the disturbing rise in anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, and antisemitic hate crimes to launch personal and discriminatory attacks on an expert witness they’ve invited to testify is both outrageous and inappropriate. This kind of racist rhetoric should be widely condemned. It has no place in Congress, or in politics. “Maya Berry is a courageous and compassionate leader who has spent her entire career working to strengthen our democracy and protect the rights of Arab American communities, and other vulnerable communities who face discrimination and targeting because of their ethnicity, race, or religion.” -
Ohio Supreme CourtSep 2024
Prisoners' Rights
State v. MorrisState v. Morris
This case in the Ohio Supreme Court concerns the scope of the state constitutional right to counsel. The police in this case interrogated the defendant, Isaiah Morris, without mentioning his already-appointed counsel or asking him to waive his right to counsel. This procedural circumstance risks confusing criminal defendants and undermining their state constitutional rights. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Ohio and WilmerHale, filed an amicus brief arguing that merely providing a defendant notice of Miranda rights falls short of the bare minimum requirements for a valid waiver. -
Oregon Supreme CourtSep 2024
Prisoners' Rights
Huskey v. Oregon Department of CorrectionsHuskey v. Oregon Department of Corrections
This case in the Oregon Supreme Court centers on whether Article I, Section 41(3) of the Oregon Constitution, which provides that Oregon prisoners lack legally enforceable rights to prison jobs and training, bars prisoners from collecting damages relating to lost prison jobs and training caused by the alleged breach of a settlement agreement by prison officials. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Oregon, filed an amicus brief arguing that that plaintiff Arnold Huskey, an incarcerated individual whose identity was used in Department of Corrections training materials, is entitled to damages notwithstanding Article I, Section 41(3), because plaintiffs in contract disputes never have to show standalone legal rights to the damages they claim. Instead, they need only show that the damages were reasonably foreseeable consequences of the alleged breach of contract.