Reproduced from the holdings of the National Archives at Riverside

1 GERALD GLEN BOYDEN, C-35520
·2 PC.hoin. oBGoxui4d4ainlce Center
Chino, CA 91708-0441
3
PLAINTIFF, PRO PER
4
5

.,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9

10

11 GERALD GLEN BOYDEN, C-35520 FRANK CANNIZZARO, D-01858
12 HORACE THOMAS, B-77278 and all . other persons
13 similarly situated,

14

Plaintiffs.

15

v.

16 DANIEL McCARTHY, individually and in his official capacity as Director of
17 the California Dept. of Corrections; OTIS THURMAN, individually and in his
18 official capacity as Superintendent of the Calif. Institution for Men;
19 BOB BALES, indivi dually and in his official capacity as Associate
20 Superintendent of the California Institution for Men,

21

Defendants.

22

23

ttL# CASE NO .Sb 1989
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
J

24

I. JURISDICTION

25

1. This is a · civil class action authorized by 42 USC 1983

26 to redress the deprivation, under color of State law, of rights 27 secured by the Constitution of the United States under the Due 28 Process Clause of the Fifth Amendme~t, and the Eighth Amendment
(Page 1)

Reproduced from the holdings of the National Archives at Riverside

1 prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The court has
2 jurisdiction under 28 u.s.c, 1343. Plaintiffs seek declaratory

3 relief pursuant to 28 u.s.c. 2201 and 2202. The matter in con-

4 troversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum of

5 $27 million.

6

(a) The class herein involved is so numerous that

7 joinder of all members is impractacable; there are questions of

8 law and fact common to the class; the claims of the represen-

9 tative parties are typical of the claims of the class; and the

10 repres entative parties will fairly and adequately protect the

11 interests of the class;

12

(b) The parties opposing the class have acted on grounds

13 generally applicable to the class, thereby making it appropriate

14 for f inal injunctive relief and corresponding declaratory relief

15 with respect to the class as a whole.

16

II. PLAINTIFFS

17

2 • Plaintiffs GERALD GLEN BOYDEN , FRANK CANN-IZZARO , and

18 HORACE THOMAS are prisoners of the State of California, currently

19 being held at the Reception Guidance Center which is located at 20 the California Institution for Men, Chino, California. Plaintiffs 21 represent the class of all other persons similarly situated, past 22 and present.

23

III. DEFENDANTS

24

3. Defendant DANIEL McCARTHY is the Director of the Californi

25 Department of Corrections. He . is legally responsible for the

26 overall operation of the Department and each institution under

27 its jurisdiction, including the Chino ·Reception Guidance Center.

28

4. Defendant OTIS THURMAN is the Warden/Superintendent of

( Page 2)

Reproduced from the holdings of the National Archives at Riverside

l the California Institution for Men (CIM). He is legally charged

2 with the day to day operation of the abovenamed institution and

3 with the welfare of all the inmates of that prison;

4

5. Defendant BOB BALES is the associate superintendant who is

5 legally responsible for the day to day operation of the Reception

6 Guidance Center, which is part of the California Institution for

7 Men, located at Chino, California.

8

6. Each defendant is sued individually and in his official

9 capacity. At all times mentioned in this Complaint each defendant

10 acted under the color of California law.

11

12

IV. FACTS

13

7. Since January i, 19S5, . the abovenamed defendants have

14 warehoused two hundred and twelve .prisoners in the Gymnasium area

15 of the Chino Reception Guidance Center which is a prison branch of

16 the California Department of Corrections.

17

a. Toilet accomodations for these 212 prisoners consist of

18 a single functioning shower head which -routinely provides ice-cold

19 water.

20

9. By reason of the inadequate plumbing, one or more toilets

21 overflow weekly. When this occurs, puddles of water collect on the

22 floor along with an abundance of offal and human excrement.

23

10. Said gymnasium which houses 212 prisoners presents an

24 accute fire hazard because the building has a highly flammable

25 wooden roof. The gym also contains hundreds of highly flammable

26 sheets, blankets, mattresses, and paper sacks which are used as

27 trash rec~ptacles and ash trays. The gym has a wooden stage, and

28 large wooden panels covered with shellac adorn the west wall.

(Page 3)

Reproduced from the holdings of the National Archives at Riverside

1

11. The gym has no adequate· fire fighting equipment and no

. 2 adequate exit system designed to escape a holocaust.

3

12. The gym has no smoke detection system whatsoe~er.

4

13. The gym has no emergency sprinkler system whatsoever.

5

14. · By reason of the defendants intentional infliction of

6 mental stress, calculated degradation through the infliction of

7 subhuman living conditions and gross disregard of all basic human

8 rights, numerous members of the Plaintiff Class confined in the

9 Chino Reception Guidance Center have already committed suicide•

10

11

V LEGAL CLAIMS

12

15. Defendants acted maliciously and sadistically for the

13 ery purpose of causing harm by forcing 212 prisoners to live in

14 gymnasium with full knowledge that said gym is a ~zardous and

15

tinderbox as well as an intrinsic death trap. Such

16 behavior of defendants violates the cruel and unusual punishment

17 clause of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

18

16. Defendants' deliberate indifference to t he unsanitary

19 living cenditions forced upon the Plaintiffs confined in the

20 Chino Reception Guidance Center violates the cruel and unusual

21 punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment of t he Constitution.

22

17. Defendants' intentional infliction of mental stress upon

23 the prisoners confined in the gymnasium, who live in constant

24 fear of being cremated in the middle of the night by a holocaust,

25 is a violation of the cruel and unusual puni shment clause of the

26 Eighth Amendment .

27

18. Defendants' gross disregard of existing safety standards

28 and defendants' willful and malicious refusal to incorporate a

(Page 4)

Reproduced from the holdi ngs of the N ational Archives at Riverside

1 sprinkler system or a smoke detection system to prevent such a

2 holocaust is a violation of the cruel and unusual punishment
3 clause of the Eighth Amendment of the u. s. Constitution.

4

19. Defendants' threats to punish Plaintiffs for taking

5 legal action, and their threats to punish prisoners who submit

6 affidavits on behalf of the Plaintiff Class, violate plaintiff's

7 rights of meaningful access to the courts, which is guaranteed

8 by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment of the United

9 States Constitution.

10

20. The plaintiffs have no plain, adequate or complete

11 remedy at law t o redress the wrongs described herein. Plaintiffs 12 have been and will continue to be irreparably injured by the 13 conduct of the defendants unless this Court grants the declara14 tory and injunctive relief which_plaintiffs s eek.

15

RELIEF SOUGHT

16

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court enter

17 judgment granting plai ntiffs:

18

1. A declaratory judgment that the defendants' acts, policies

19 and pra ctices described herein violate plaintiffsi r ights under

20 the United Sta tes Cons titution.

21

2. A preliminary and permanent injunct ion which:

22

a) Prohibits the defendants, their successors in office,

23 agents and employees and all other persons in active concert and

24 participa tion with them from harassing, threatening, punishing

25 or retali ating in any way against any plaintiff because he filed

26 this action or against any other prisoner because that prisoner

27 submitted affidavits in this case on ·behalf of the plaintiffs;

28

b) Pr ohibits Defendants McCARTHY, THURMAN and BALES from

(Page 5)

Reproduced from the holdings of the N ational A rchives at Riverside

1 transferring any plaintiff to any other institution, without 2 that plaintiff's express consent, during the pendency of this

3 action;

c) Requires defendants McDARTHY, THURMAN and BALES to 5 allow plaintiffs and other prisoners: l) .to engage in any oral

6 or written communication which is reasonably related to the

7 conduct of this suit, including the preparation of affidavits on

8 behalf of plaintiffs; and 2) to allow plaintiffs to confer with

9 co-plaintiffs and prepare legal papers and do anything else,

10 consistent with prison security, which is reasonably connected

11 with the conduct of this suit.

12

3. Compensatory damages at the rate of $100.00 per day for

13 each day of barbarous and unconstitutional confinement in the

14 gym area of the Chino Reception Ouidance Center.

15

4. Nominal damages for the intentional infliction of mental

16 stress and anguish in the amount of $50.00 per day.

17

5. Exemplary damages for gross disregard of human and civi l

18 rights in the amount of $50.00 per day.

19

6. Plaintiffs hereby request immediate certification of the

20 class, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil

21 Procedure. Said class consists of all men forced to live under

22 the lawless conditions imposed in the gym area of the Chino

23 Reception Center, commencing on the date of January 1, 1985•

24

7. Plaintiffs hereby request the Court to appoint a qualified

25 firm of attorneys to fairly and adequately represent the entire

26 Plaintiff Class herein.

27

8. A jury trial on all issues triable by jury.

28

9. Plaintiffs' costs of this suit.

(Page 6)

Reproduced from the holdings of the National Arc/rives at Riverside

1

10. Such other and .further relie.f as this court deems just,

·2 proper and equitable.

3 4 5 6 7
8 DATED: March 6, 1986

Respectfully submitted,
J/.~~1~~
GERALD GLEN BOYDEN, C-35520
FJRAJNK~C·Ac.N£ NI:~~858

9
HORACE THOMAS , B-77278
10

11

RP.eoc.epBtiooxn44G1uidance Center

12

Chino·, CA 91708-0441

13

IN PRO .PER

14

15

VERIFICATION

16 I have read the .foregoing Complaint and hereby veri.fy that the

17 matters alleged therein are true, except as to matters alleged

18 on information and belief, and, as to those, I believe them to

19 be true. I certify under penalty o.f perjury that the .foregoing

20 is true and correct.

21

Executed at Chino California

22

on March 6, 1986

23

·~~$~

24

;#;&~,J_ (}_~

25

26

27

28
(P@ge 7)

National Archives and Records Administration The National Archives at Riverside
Record Group: 21, Records of District Courts of the United States Agency or Division: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Series: Civil Case Files, 1938-1995 Folder Title: 86-1989 Box Number: 176
For guidance citing records, ask for a copy of Citing Records in the National Archives of the United States (GIL 17) or view it at: www.archives.gov/publications/general_information_leaflets/17.html

 Reproduced from the holdings of the National Arc/rives at Riverside

1 JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP, Attorney . General

of the State of California 2 STEVE WHITE, Chief Assistant
Attorney General

'r.,' -.~ .J ~

3 KRISTOFER JORSTAD, Senior Supervising

Deputy Attorney General

4 5

r · · .. CAROL A. GREENWALD , Deputy

SEP29 4 1?

Attorney General CAROL. SLATER FREDERICK,

Supervl..Sl..Jlg~, · (i.:-..ul.:~tl~

p~~ 'QB
r'cu~tv.i

ORI GINAL

Deputy Attorney General

.

£1 ~ £ ·1.·' 'oi! .

6 3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 800 ··-- ·- · ·- · -- ~-

Los Angeles, California 90010

7 Telephone: (213) 736-2194

8 Attorneys for Defendants

9
IN THE UNITED STATES· DISTRICT COURT 10
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11

1 2 GERALD GLEN BOYDEN, et al ., )

)

13

Plaintiffs,

)

)

14

v.

)

)

15 D. J. McCARTHY, et al .,

)

)

16

Defendants.

)

17 --------------------------)

NO. CV 86-1989-HLH(K)
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

18

The parties to the above-entitled class action lawsuit,

19 through their respective counsel, have met and conferred and

20 hereby enter into this Memorandum of Understanding to resolve

21 this lawsuit involving the California Institution for Men

22 (CIM) at Chino, California .

23

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

24

The California Institution for Men is comprised of four

25 facilities: East, Central, West and Minimum. Approximately

26 6,400 inmates are housed at CIM. Most of them are reception

27 center process cases or parole violators who have been returned

1.

85 35511

Reproduced from the holdings of the National Archives at Riverside

1 to custody. The remainder are primarily permanent work crew

2 inmates . The instant lawsuit, by virtue of plaintiffs'

3 Pretrial Memorandum re Triable Issues, is limited to conditions

4 of confinement for reception center inmates at CIM-East,

5 excluding the Butte housing area and the Del Norte Project, and

6 CIM-Central, excluding Palm Hall. CIM-West has been dismissed

7 from the litigation, and CIM-Minimum was never at issue .

8 Permanent work crew inmates are not members of the plaintiff

9 class, and conditions of their confinement are not at issue .

10

CIM-CENTRAL .

11

The CIM-Central facility, which is also known as

12 Reception Center-Central, has an inmate population of ap-

13 proximately 1,504 . Of this number, approximately 265 inmates

14 are permanent work crew or are housed in Palm Hall, the

15 administrative segregation unit, and are not part of the

16 plaintiff class. The remaining inmates, approximately 1,239 in

17 number, are housed in Birch Hall, Sycamore Hall, Cypress Hall,

18 Madrone Hall, the Gymnasium, the Orientation Room (OR Room) or

19 Room One.

20

CIM-Central inmates receive hot meals at breakfast and

21 dinner and a box lunch at midday. They now have access to

22 outdoor exercise at least three times per week for a total of

23 at least eight hours . In the CIM-Central yard, inmates may use

24 the weight pile, jog, and play handball, basketball and

25 softball. As of September 1, 1988, inmates also have indoor

26 recreation consisting of board games and books. Inmates may

27 check out library books in their housing area for one week by

2.

85 35511

Reproduced from the holdings of the National Archives at Riverside

1 submitting a book request slip to the inmate library clerk.

2 The clerk attempts to match the book to the inmate's request.

3 In addition, inmates may check out dominoes and pinochle cards

4 in their housing areas. The indoor recreation program will be

5 expanded by December 1, 1988, by the purchase of additional

6 board games.

7

Central inmates have the opportunity to go to the law

8 library at least two and one-half hours per week pursuant to a

9 schedule which does not require them to choose between the law

10 library and outdoor exercise. · CIM-Central inmates now receive

11 indoor showers three times each week. The clothing of Central

12 inmates is exchanged twice each week . At that time, in

13 addition to the full set of clothes the inmate is wearing, each

14 inmate receives the following clean clothing: one chambray

15 shirt, one pair of denim jeans, two socks, one t-shirt, and

16 two pairs of undershorts.

17

Each housing area at CIM-Central is scheduled for sick

18 call one day per week. Inmates may present themselves for

19 medical attention at the scheduled time. In addition, any

20 inmate may inform custody staff of his need for medical

21 attention during non-scheduled times, and he will be sent to

22 the medical clinic. Routine medical services are available

23 from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. at CIM-Central. Emergency medical

24 services are available 24 hours each day.

25

Inmates who are brought into the prison from the county

26 jails are brought on buses to Receiving and Release in CIM-

27 Central. There the Receiving and Release sergeant studies the

3 .

85 35511

Reproduced from the holdings of the National Archives at Riversitle

1 papers which come in with each inmate, usually the commitment

2 information, abstract of judgment, probation report, minute

3 orders, rap sheets, and other information. He reviews the

4 documents for riot or violence potential, homosexuality, arson,

5 escape, gang affiliation, enemies,· protective custody needs and

6 pending prosecutions, among other things. In addition, the

7 sergeant interviews each inmate, asking for a brief history

8 which contains information about prior commitments, homosexual

9 tendencies, physical or medical problems, enemies, fears of the

10 prison system, and gang affiliation. The sergeant fills out a

11 form with the answers he receives from the inmate and the

12 information contained in the documents and indicates on the

13 form whether he believes the inmate should be in a cell or in a

14 dormitory setting. When the form is complete the sergeant

15 directs it to the watch commander, and any inmate who has

16 enemies or special needs is directed to the watch commander for

17 a personal interview so that the watch commander can determine

18 where best to house the inmate. The watch commander, in

19 addition to interviewing inmates with unusual needs, reviews

20 all housing assignments made by the Receiving and Release

21 sergeant, consulting old slips on file from prior years for

22 additional data on some inmates with previous commitments and

23 overriding the sergeant's recommendation when appropriate.

24

CIM-EAST.

25

CIM-East, also known as Reception Center-East, has a

26 population of approximately 1,322 inmates. Of this number

27 approximately 390 inmates are part of the Del Norte Project or

4.

85 35511

Reproduced from the holdings of the National Archives at Riverside

1 the permanent work crew housed in Butte and, as such, are not

2 members of the plaintiff class. The remaining inmates,

3 approximately 932 in number, are housed in Alpine, Colusa, the

4 East Gymnasium and the Education Classrooms .

5

CIM-East inmates receive three hot meals each day .

6 Weather permitting, they are allowed to be on the yard from

7 approximately 7 a . m. until 8:30 p.m. or dark each day,

8 excluding the time required for counts and meals. CIM-East has

9 a recreation coach and offers inmates basketball, softball, a

10 swimming pool, weights, tennis, horseshoes, ping-pong,

11 racquetball and board games. East inmates have access to the

12 law library five days per week, and, because of the essentially

13 full-time availability of the yard, such access does not

14 interfere with their having adequate access to outdoor

15 exercise . East inmates have access to indoor showers for 20 to

16 40 minutes per day . The clothing of East inmates is exchanged

17 once each week. In addition to the full set of clothing worn

18 by the inmate, each inmate receives the following clean

19 clothing: two chambray shirts, two pairs of denim jeans, four

20 socks, two t-shirts, and three pairs of undershorts.

21

Sick call at CIM-East is conducted from 6 : 15 a .m. to

22 6:45 a.m. Monday through Friday. In addition, any inmate may

23 inform staff of his need for medical attention during non-

24 scheduled times, and he will be sent to the medical clinic,

25 which is open from 6 a.m . to 10 p.m. Emergency medical

26 services are available 24 hours each day .

27

I

5.

85 35511

Reproduced from the holdings of the National Archives at Riverside

1

RESOLUTION OF ISSUES

2

The parties agree that the issues raised by the

3 instant lawsuit shall be resolved as follows:

4

1. There are two dayrooms, one upper and one lower, in

5 the Alpine housing unit at Reception Center-East . Each

6 currently houses approximately 46 inmates and has one toilet,

7 one sink and six showers. By approximately November 14, 1988,

8 there will be three combination toilet/sinks in each of the two

9 Alpine dayrooms. The parties stip~late that the number of

10 shower heads and hours of access currently available to Alpine

11 inmates meet constitutional standards.

12

2. There are two dayrooms, one upper and one lower, in

13 the Colusa housing unit at Reception Center-East. Each

14 currently houses approximately 46 inmates and has one toilet,

15 one sink and six showers. By approximately December 22, 1988,

16 there will be three combination toilet/sinks in each of the two

17 Colusa dayrooms. The parties stipulate that the number of

18
shower heads and hours of access currently available to Colusa

19 inmates meet constitutional standards.

20
3. There are two adjacent classrooms which are known

21 as "Education" at Reception Center-East. Each currently houses

22 approximately 30 inmates and has one toilet and one sink. By

23
approximately February 8, 1989, there will be six combination

24 toilet/sinks in Education . Inmates housed in these two

25 classrooms shower in the East Gymnasium.

26 4. Approximately 186 inmates are housed in the

27
Reception Center-East Gymnasium, which has three toilets, three

6.

85 35511

Reproduced from the holdings of the National Archives at Riverside

1 urinals, four sinks, and 12 showers. By approximately April

2 23, 1989, there will be 14 combination toilet/sinks and 12

3 showers in the East Gymnasium.

4

5 . Approximately 42 Reception Center-Central inmates

5 are housed in the Cypress Hall Dayroom, which has one toilet,

6 one sink, and no showers. By approximately January 15, 1989,

7 the Cypress Dayroom will have four combination toilet/sinks and

8 one shower.

9

6. Approximately 46 Reception C~nter-Central inmates

10 are housed in the Birch Hall Dayroom, which has one toilet, one

11 sink, and no showers. By approximately January 30, 1989, the

12 Birch Dayroom will have four combination toilet/sinks and one

13 shower.

14

7. Approximately 213 inmates are housed in the

15 Reception Center-Central G~nnasium, which has two sinks, four

16 toilets, two urinals, and eight showers . By approximately

17 April 30, 1989, the Central Gymnasium will have 16 toilet/sink

18 combinations and 16 showers.

19

8. Approximately 30 Reception Center-Central inmates

20 are housed in the Orientation or "OR" Room, which has one

21 toilet, one sink and no showers. By approximately June 1,

22 1989, the OR Room will have two combination toilet/sinks.

23 Because of the size of the OR Room· it would be structurally

24 impractical to add showers. OR Room inmates are showered on a

25 regularly scheduled basis in the CIM-Central Gymnasium's

26 shower facilities.

27

I

7.

85 35511

Reproduced from the holdings of the National Archives at Riverside

1

9. Approximately 16 Reception Center-Central inmates

2 are housed in Room One, which has one toilet, one sink and no

3 showers. By approximately June 15, 1989, Room One will have

4 two combination toilet/sinks. Because of the size of Room One

5 it would be structurally impractic·al to add showers. Room One

6 inmates are showered on a regularly scheduled basis in the

7 CIM-Central Gymnasium's shower facilities.

8

10. Approximately 42 Reception Center-Central inmates

9 are housed in the Sycamore Hall Dayroom, which has one toilet,

10 one sink, and no showers . By ·approximately July 5, 1989, the

11 Sycamore Hall Dayroom will have four combination toilet/sinks

12 and one shower .

13

11 . Approximately 42 Reception Center-Central inmates

14 are housed in the Madrone Hall Dayroom, which has one toilet,

15 one sink and no showers. By approximately July 30, 1989, the

16 Madrone Dayroom will have four combination toilet/sinks and one

17 shower .

18

12. Asbestos removal is required before any plumbing

19 work can be done at CIM- Central . Removal work commenced under

20 an existing contract on September 6, 1988, and is expected to

21 be completed by December 15, 1988 . Asbestos removal is

2 2 anticipated to be necessary in some portions of CIM-East before

23 plumbing can be done . A new contract is being prepared for the

24 asbestos removal work required at CIM-East and any additional

25 asbestos removal work requi red at CIM- Central. Under its terms

26 the contractor will be prepared to commence removal work on 24-

27 hour notice if additional asbestos is found at either East or

8 .

85 3551 1

Reproduced from the holdings of the National Archives at-Riverside

1 Central . To the extent that such additional removal is

2 required, defendants anticipate a day-for-day delay in

3 completion of these projects, based on the time it takes the

4 contractor to isolate and encapsulate the asbestos.

5

' 13 . The foregoing construction schedule is dependent

6 on the Department of Corrections' being able to obtain 7 emergency procurements of materials from the Department of

8 General Services. Delays in the procurement process may delay

9 completion of the plumbing projects on scbedule.

10

14. Because the scheduled completion of this

11 construction depends on the Department ' s being able to remove

12 inmates from the work areas, the schedule may also be adversely

13 affected by unusually high inmate intake, which could cause

14 more than day-for-day delays.

15

15. Counsel for defendants will notify' counsel for

16 plaintiffs of any problems or circumstances which threaten a

17 substantial delay of the scheduled construction.

18

16 . The parties agree that due to changed

19 circumstances or unforeseen problems it may be necessary,

20 useful or appropriate in the future to modify the terms and

21 conditions of this Memorandum of Understanding . Therefore, the

22 parties, through their undersigned counsel, agree to meet and

23 confer in good faith to consider changes to this Memorandum of

24 Understanding upon the request of either party.

25

17. Within ten days of the date when the Memorandum of

26 Understanding has been filed with the Court , the defendants

27 shall post copies of this Memorandum of Understanding in each

9 •

85 35511

Reproduced from the holdings of the National Archives at-Riverside

1 affected housing area and in the law libraries of CIM-Central

2 and CIM-East. Thereafter, staff will make reasonable, good

3 faith efforts to maintain the posting of the Memorandum of

4 Understanding in those areas until the Memorandum of

5 Understanding expires, either on the granting of plaintiffs'

6 motion to dismiss the action or on further order of this Court.

7

18. When the construction identified in paragraphs one

8 through 12 has been completed, counsel for plaintiffs and

9 defendants will jointly interview Reception Center-Central and

10 Reception Center-East inmates. These inmate interviews will

11 take place on one calendar day and will be scheduled at the

12 discretion of CIM staff and at the convenience of counsel. The

13 interviews will not delay or otherwise interfere with the

14 prompt filing of plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the action with

15 prejudice so long as it is determined that : a) the toilets,

16 sinks and showers identified in paragraphs one through 11 above

17 have been installed; b) Reception Center-Central inmates

18 continue to have access to outdoor exercise at least three

19 times per week; c) Reception Center-Central inmates continue

20 to have indoor recreation in the form of games and books; d)

21 Reception Center-Central inmates continue to have access to the

22 law library pursuant to a schedule which does not require them

23 to forego outdoor exercise; e) Reception Center-Central

24 inmates receive at least three showers per week; f) the

25 clothing of Reception Center-Central inmates is exchanged at

26 least once a week and each inmate receives at least two

27 chambray shirts, two pairs of denim jeans, four socks, two t-

10.

85 35511

Reproduced from the holdings of the National Archives at Riverside

1 shirts and three pairs of undershorts as his weekly allotment

2 of clean clothing .

3

19. Upon completion by the defendants of the

4 construction projects outlined above in the numbered paragraphs

5 which . comprise the section entitled 11 Resolution of Issues 11 and

6 by counsel for both parties of the inmate interviews, counsel

7 for plaintiffs will move the Court to dismiss this action with

8 prejudice. Upon the Court's granting of the motion to dismiss

9 the action, the Memorandum of Understanding will expire .

10

20. The dismissal with prejudice of this action shall

11 not be construed to prevent new litigation on constitutional

12 claims alleged to be in existence following the date of

13 dismissal.

14

21 . Defendants' entering into this Memorandum of

15 Understanding shall not be construed as an admission by

16 defendants that plaintiffs are entitled to any relief in the

17 instant lawsuit . Defendants have entered into this Memorandum

18 of Understanding for the purpose of settling disputed 19 contentions and controversies arising from this action .

20 Performance by the parties of the terms and conditions set

2 1 forth in the section entitled 11 Resolution of Issues 11 in this

22 Memorandum of Understanding fully resolves the allegations and 23 contentions of the instant lawsuit ~

24

22 . Counsel for plaintiffs and defendants have

25 identified, based on contemporaneous records kept and submitted

26 by plaintiffs , an attorneys' fees award amount, to wit forty-

27 four thousand dollars ($44,000 . 00), to which defendants do not

11.

85 3551 1

Rep roduced from the holdings of the N ational Archives at Riverside

1 object and which plaintiffs accept in full satisfaction of this

2 claim. Payment , pursuant to court order issued at the time of

3 the filing of the Memorandum of Understanding, of twenty-two

4 thousand dollars ($22,000 . 00) to the ACLU Foundation of

5 Southern California will constitute partial satisfaction of

6 plaintiffs' attorneys' fees claim . Payment , pursuant to court 7 order issued after the grant of plaintiffs' motion to dismiss 8 this action with prejudice, of the balance, to wit, twenty- two

9 thousand dollars ($22,000 . 00), to the ACLU Foundation of 10 Southern California will resolve all remaining attorneys' fees 11 issues between the parties . Each party shall bear its own

12 costs. 13

14

JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP, Attorney General

of the State of Cal ~fornia 15

16 DATED :
17
18 19

By ~~ ~ CAROL SLATER REDERICK
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys· for Defendants

20

21 22 2 3 DATED: 24 25

ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
By_ _~- - =-=:f)=~! h~vi~~~~-~-~L=--=--­ J, HN H. HAGAi(f"JR { .
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

26

27

12 .

85 35511

Reproduced from the holdings of the National Archives at Riverside

DECLARATION OF. SERVICE BY MAIL

GERALD GLEN BOYDEN, et al., Re: D. J. McCARTHY, et al .

No. CV 86-1989 HLH(Kl

I am over 18 years of age, and not a party to the within cause; my business address is 3580 Wilshire Boulevard,
Los Angeles, California 90010; I served a copy of the attached

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

a copy of the attached MEMORANDUM OF. UNDERSTANDING on each of the following by causing to be personally delivered by messenger as follows:
John H. Hagar, Jr. Rebecca Jurado ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 633 South Shatto Place Los Angeles, CA 90005

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on September 29, 1988 California.

at Los Angeles,

9/29/88 CSF:gr CL88CX0009

. Deciafant GLENDA ROWLETT

National Archives and Records Administration The National Archives at Riverside
Record Group: 21, Records of District Courts of the United States Agency or Division: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Series: Civil Case Files, 1938-1995 Folder Title: 86-1989 Box Number: 176
For guidance citing records, ask for a copy of Citing Records in the National Archives of the United States (GIL 17) or view it at: www.archives.gov/publications/general_information_leaflets/17.html

 Reproduced from the holdings of the National Archives at Riverside

1 JOHN HAGAR

2

REBECCA JURAOO PAUL HOFFMAN

3

ACW Foundation of . Southern California

633 South Shatto Place 4 Los Angeles, California 90005

5 (213) .487-1720

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
6

7

8

Fffi TIIE CENIRAL DIS'IRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

10 GERALD GLEN BOYDEN; FRANK

)

CANNIZZARO; HORACE THOMAS;

)

11 ERNST GARCIA; IX){X;LAS LYNUM;

)

ERROL JACKSON; and ROBERT

)

12 BEDIFCRD,

)

)

13

)

14

Plaintiffs,

) )

15

vs.

) )

16

D. J. MC CARTHY; and arrs
THURMAN,

) )

)

17

Defendants.

)

18 --------------------------)

00. CV 86-1989-HUI(K)

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(1)

Reproduced from the holdings of the National Archives at Riverside

1

2

1. This class action for declaratory and injunctive relief is

3 brought to challenge unconstitutional conditions and practices at

4 the California Institute for Men (hereinafter "CIM") located in

5 Chino, California. Specifically, this action challenges conditions

6 of confinement in the three separate CIM facilities utilized as

7 Reception Centers: CIM-Central, CIM-East, and CIM-West. This

8 litigation does not address conditions of confinement at that

9 portion of CIM which is know as "CIM Minimum." Two types of

10 prisoners are confined at the three Reception Centers: (1) recently

11 convicted prisoners are incarcerated at CIM Reception Centers as

12 part of the Department of Corrections' initial classification and

13 evaluation upon their entry into state prison; and (2) parole

14 violators are confined at CIM while ·awaiting revocation hearings

15 concerning alleged violations and while awaiting pl acement at other

16 institutions within the Department of Corrections . The

17 unconstitutional conditions complained of endanger the physical,

18 emotional, and psychological well being of these prisoners, and

19 deprive them of rights guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and

20 Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

21

JUUSDICTia.

22

2. This is a suit against California officials acting in their

23 official capacities, authorized by 42 U.S.C. section 1983; to

24 redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights secured

25 by the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United

26 States Constitution. Jurisdiction is conferred on this court 27 pursuant to 28 U.S.C., section 1331; 28 U.S.C., section 1343,

28 providing for jurisdiction for claims arising under 28 U. S.C.,

(2)

Reproduced from the holdings of the National Archives at Riverside

1 section 1983; and under 28 U.S .C., sections 2201 and 2202, relating

2 to declaratory judgements.

3

PARTIES

4

3. Plaintiffs GERAlD GLEN BOYDEN, FRANK CANNIZZARO, and HORACE

5 THOMAS are of majority age and at the time of the filing of the

6 original complaint, were incarcerated by the California Department

7 of Corrections in the CIM-Central Reception Guidance Center;

8 plaintiffs ERNEST GARCIA and DOUGLAS LYNUM were, at the time of the

9 filing of the Second Amended Complaint, . incarcerated by the

10 California Department of Corrections in the CIM-West Reception

11 Guidance Center; and plaintiffs ERROL JACKSON and ROBERT BEDIFORD

12 were, at the time of the filing of the Second Amended Complaint,

13 incarcerated by the California Department of Corrections in the CIM-

14 East Reception Guidance Center. These named plaintiffs represent a

15 cross section of the transitory inmate population in the CIM

16 Reception Centers.

17

4. Defendant D.J. MC CARTHY was, at the time of the filing of

18 the original complaint, the Director of the California Department of

19 Corrections and legally responsible for the overall operation of the

20 Department and each institution under its jurisdiction; including

21 CIM.

22

5. Defendant OTIS THURMAN is the Superintendent of CIM. He is

23 legally responsible for the day.to day operations of that
24 correctional facility.

25

CLASS AC'ITm ALUI;ATI<K>

26

6. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and on

27 behalf of all other inmates similarly_ imprisoned in CIM Reception

28 Centers pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b) of the Federal Rules of

(3)

Reproduced from the holdings of the National Archives at Riverside

1 Civil Procedure.

2

7. The members of the plaintiffs ' class are all present and

3 future convicted prisoners housed in the three CIM Reception

4 Centers, each of whom is subjected to the conditions and practices

5 alleged herein.

6

8. Plaintiffs are members of a class which at any given point in

7 time is comprised of more than four thousand members [for example,

8 on May 10, 1987, there were 1,089 inmates confined in CIM-East,

9 1,520 inmates confined in CIM-Central, and 1,310 inmates confined in

10 CIM-West]. The CIM Reception· Centers' population is subject to

11 constant fluctuation, as recently convicted inmates and parole

12 violators enter the Department of Corrections while other Reception

13 Center inmates who have been classified or found guilty of a parole

14 violation are assigned more permanent housing in other California

15 prisons. Thus, the number of members in the class is both numerous

16 and ever-changing, so that joinder is impractical.

17

9. There are questions of law and fact common to all members of

18 the class; namely: do the practices a~d conditions alleged herein

19 violate the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs and the proposed 20 class?

21

10. The questions of law and fact which are common to members of

22 the class predominate over questions affecting only individual 23 members. Neither the differences in individual class members' legal
24 status nor other individual characteristics among the class members

25 are relevant to the questions raised by the allegations herein.

26

11. The plaintiffs' claims are typical of those of the members

27 of the class that they seek to represent. The defenses that the

28 defendants have raised and will raise are common to all members of

(4)

Reproduced from the holdings of the National Archives at Riverside

1 this class. The plaintiffs know · of no conflict of interest among

2 members of the class with regard to the issues of this case, nor do

3 plaintiffs know of any interest which individual class members might

4 have in controlling or maintaining separate actions. Plaintiffs

5 will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the proposed

6 class as will the attorneys who represent them.

7

12. A class action is superior to other available methods for

8 the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy, and the

9 plaintiffs know of no difficulties likely to be encountered in the

10 management of this case as a class action.

11

FAC'IUAL AU.B;ATI<KS

12

13. The CIM Reception Centers are located in in Chino,

13 California. They are maintained and operated by the California

14 Department of Corrections and are within the jurisdiction of the
15 Central District of California Federal District Court~

16

14. CIM-East was not designed as, nor originally used as a

17 Reception Center. It consists of 400 cells originally designated as

18 single cells because of their extremely small size and "over and

19 under" construction. Presently, each of those cells is double-

20 celled, and the CIM-East gymnasium, dayrooms, recreation rooms, and

21 television rooms have been converted as inmate housing units. The

22 Department of Corrections has set CIM-East' s "design capacity" at

23 400 inmates, and it's "staffed capac·ity" [that number of inmates

24 which the Department feels can be confined in the facility given the

25 allocated correctional staff] at 856. As of May 10, 1987, there

26 were 1,089 inmates confined at CIM-East, 272.3% of design capacit y.

27 The inmates confined at CIM-East are level III parole violators and

28 recently convicted felons. At present, the small recreation rooms

(5)

Reproduced from the holdings of the National Archives at Riverside

1 have been converted to eight man dorms, while large television rooms

2 are in the process of conversion [for example, the Colusa TV room

3 contains more than ten bunks which are not yet occupied]. In

4 addition, defendants have recently begun housing men in the East

5 Education building, which when complete, will render CIM-East more

6 than 300% of design capacity.

7

15. CIM-West was not designed as, nor originally used as a

8 Reception Center. It consists of approximately ten wooden frame

9 dormitories. The Department of Corrections has set CIM-West's

10 ''design capacity" at 640 inmates, and it's "staffed capacity" at

11 1,097. As of May 10, 1987, there were 1,310 inmates confined at

12 CIM-West, 204.7% of design capacity. · 1he inmates confined at CIM-

13 West are level I and II parole violators and recently convicted

14 felons.

15

16. CIM-Central was designed as a Reception Center. It consists

16 of six housing tm:its of cells originally designated as single cells

17 because of their extremely small size and "over and under"

18 construction. Presently, each of those cells is double-celled, and

19 the CIM-Central gymnasium and dayrooms have been converted to inmate

20 housing units . The Department of Corrections has set CIM-Central' s

21 "design capacity" at 618 inmates, and it's "staffed capacity" at

22 1,374. As of May 10, 1987, there were 1,563 inmates confined at

23 CIM-Central, 252.9% of design capacity. The inmates confined at

24 CIM-East are level IV [the highest security level in California

25 prisons] parole violators and recently convicted felons.

26

17. The prisoner population of the California Department of

27 Corrections has increased steadily since 1980. 1he December 1984

28 papulation was 43,314, by December 1986 it had risen to 59,484.

(6)

Reproduced from the ho ldings of the National Arc/rives at Riverside

1 This increase is primarily due to three factors: (1) a continuing

2 increase in new admissions [of whom an increasing percentage are

3 recidivists]; (2) a steady increase in the number of parole

4 violators returning to prison; (3) an increasing number of parolees

5 being returned to prison pending investigation for revocation.

6

18. Despite almost unlimited funding and legislative support,

7 the Department of Corrections has failed to construct adequate

8 correctional facilities for this increasing population. When

9 California's Determinate Sentencin~ Law went into effect, the

10 Department took the position that there would not be an increase in

11 prison populations , contending that once a core group of career

12 offenders were incarcerated, the increase in prisoners would end.

13 Thereafter, the Department spent two years on a program to utilize

14 existing structures for prisons, subsequently abandoned that project

15 and implemented a massive prison building program. Not one of the

16 new prisons has been completed on schedule. Numerous prison

17 projects have been abandoned. Institutions have begun construction

18 for one classification of inmate and have been changed in middle of

19 construction into a different configuration for another

20 classification of inmate. The Department failed to obtain licensure

21 for their medical facilities, resulting in system wide litigation.

22 The Department overcrowded prisons without adequate staffing and

23 facility adjustments, resulting in Crurt ordered population caps at

24 San Quentin, CMF-South, and the California Mens Colony. The

25 Department failed to comply with instructions by the California

26 legislature to build at least one prison in Los Angeles County,

27 resulting in the Legislature refusing_to open a men's prison in San

28 Diego and a women's prison in Stocton.

(7)

Reproduced from the holdings of the National Arc/rives at Riverside

1

19 . At the same time , t h e Department failed to const r uct

2 facilities for the housing of parole violators, despite departmental

3 statistical data showing both an increasing violation rate and an

4 increasing parole population. Because of the number of violators
an 5 and inadequate staff of hearing officers, the 45 day standard for

6 revocation hearings has not been enforced [for example, the

7 Department admits to an average processing time of 65 days for

8 violators processed between July and December 1986], a situation

9 which has aggravated overcrowding. Until late 1986 the Department

10 refused to accept pre-hearing violators in their prisons, and

11 attempted to force their confinement in county jails. Federal Court

12 mandated population caps at the Los Angeles and Orange County Jails,

13 and the subsequent threat of County litigation against the

14 Department, has created the current Department practice of conf ining

15 violators in the two California Reception Centers, CIM and the

16 California Medical Facility.

17

20. The Department's Spring 1987 population projections for the

18 years 1987-1991 call for a continuation of increased admissions of

19 male felons , wit h the most signifi cant increase being in drug

20 related crimes. That same projection predicts a steady increases in

21 the number of parole violators returned to prison. Despite this

22 increase in new commitments and parole violators, the Department has

23 not implemented plans for the construction of new Reception Centers,

24 nor have formal plans been submitted for another wave of prison

25 construction.

26

21. Approximately 212 inmates are housed in the CIM-Central

27 Gymnasium . That Gymnasium has inadequate fire prevention and fire

28 safety equipment. There is no automatic smoke detection equipment

(8)

Reproduced from the holdings of the National Archives at Riverside

1 and no sprinkler system. The ·emergency exits of the Gymnasium and 2 evacuation procedures are inadequate given the number of inmates 3 confined therein. It contains inadequate sanitary facilities, 4 including an inadequate number of toilets and showers. Sanitation 5 procedures and practices, including clothing exchange, are 6 inadequate and do not meet defendants: regulations. Hot water has 7 not been available to inmates on a regular basis. Inmates of 8 different classifications [from level I workers to level IV parole 9 violators] are confined together in the crowded, insecure 10 environment of the Gymnasium, necessitating the installation of a 11 twenty-four hour gun position, wherein a correctional officer 12 constantly '_'covers" Gymnasium inmates with an automatic rifle. 13 There exists no prior medical, security, and psychological screening 14 of inmates placed in the CIM-Central .Gymnasium. Inmates are locked 15 into the Gymnasium for twenty-four hours per day. Although outdoor 16 exercise is scheduled, until the filing of this litigation is was
17 rarely granted, and when it was, inmates must choose between
18 exercise, use of the law library, purchases at the commissary, and 19 taking a soower. There are no CIM-Central facilities for indoor
20 exercise.

21

22. Approximately 200 inmates are housed in the CIM-East

22 Gymnasium. That Gymnasium has inadequate fire prevention and fire

23 safety equipment. There is no automatic smoke detection equipment

24 and no sprinkler system. The emergency exits of the Gymnasium and

25 evacuation procedures are inadequate given the number of inmates

26 confined therein. It contains inadequate sanitary facilities,

27 including an inadequate number of toilets [3], showers [1], urinals

28 [3], and sinks [3] . Sanitation procedures and practices, including

(9)

Reproduced from the holdings of the National Archives at Riverside

1 clothing exchange, are inadequate and do not meet defendants'

2 regulations. Hot water has not been available to inmates on a

3 regular basis. There exists no prior medical, security, and

4 psychological screening of inmates placed in the CIM-East Gymnasium. 5 Altro~gh outdoor exercise is scheduled, until t he filing of this

6 litigation is was rarely granted, and when it was, inmates must

7 choose between exercise, use of the law library, purchases at the

8 commissary, and taking a shower. There are no CIM-East facilities

9 for indoor exercise.

10

23. Inmates are housed in converted dormitories in dayrooms,

11 recreation rooms, and television rooms at both CIM-East and CIM-

12 Central. As presently utilized, these housing areas provide

13 inadequate floorspace , evacuation, fire, safety, and sanitation

14 facilities [for example, there are no 'toilets or showers available

15 in certain East dayrooms, almost all other converted recreation and

16 dayrooms contain no showers for inmate use]. There are no showers

17 available for inmate use in the East Education Building presently

18 being "converted" for inmate housing.

19

24. Although CIM has requested funding for additional toilets,

20 sinks, urinals, and showers for the Gymnasiums and converted

21 dormitories, the Sacramento office of the Department of Corrections

22 has denied those requests . Defendants refuse to officially label

23 the· converted Gymnasiums and dormitories as inmate housing units,

24 referring to them as "overflow" or '_'emergency housing" and thus

25 avoid providing minimum sanitation facilities. At the same time,

26 the Department of Corrections is unable to state when the

27 ''emergency" will end.

28 Ill

(10)

Reproduced from the holdings of the National Archives at Riverside

1

25. An excessive number of inmates are housed in each of the

2 CIM-West wooden frame dormitories. As presently utilized, these

3 housing areas provide inadequate floorspace, evacuation, fire,

4 safety, and sanitation facilities.

5

26. Inmates are housed under unconstitutional conditions in

6 double-cells in CIM-East and CIM-Central. Floorspace is inadequate. 7 No formal screening process exists prior to double-celling. 8 Although outdoor exercise is scheduled, until the filing of this 9 litigation is was rarely granted, and when it was, inmates must 10 choose between exercise, use of the law library, purchases at the

11 commissary, and taking a shower. There are no facilities for indoor
12 exercise, thus inmates spend an inordinate period of time each day 13 confined within the double-cells. There exists inadequate education

14 and work programs available to reception inmates and parole 15 violators during their CIM double-celled confinement.

16

27. Because of the above described overcrowding, generalized

17 problems exist which affect all CIM facilities:

18

A. There exists an inadequate number of correction staff, CIM-

19 East, CIM-Central, and CIM-West presently confine hundreds of

20 inmates more the Department's own "staffed capacity'' level.

21

B. There exists an inadequate number of Department support

22 staff, including counselors and parole revocation hearing personnel,

23 a situation which delays the reception and revocation process and

24 aggravates CIM overcrowding.

25

C. Clothing exchange is not timely, nor are clothes properly

26 cleaned.

27

D. Inmates are not provided with an adequate time to eat.

28 East inmates complain that the messhall periodically does not have

(11)

Reproduced from the holdings of the National Archives at Riverside

1 adequate supplies of food. Inmates for Central, East, and West 2 complain about t he quality of CIM food when compared to County Jail

3 meals.

4

E. Medical care is not timely, overcrowding related security

5 problems limit inmates' access to medical care.

6

F. Inmates are provided with inadequate opportunities for

7 indoor and outdoor exercise . Outdoor exercise yards are

8 inadequately supervised, and except for weight piles, little

9 recreational opportunities are available. Until the filing of this

10 litigation defendants failed to -maintain records of which inmates 11 were provided with outdoor exercise. Indoor recreation has been 12 curtailed because of the conversion of recreation areas into inmate

13 housing.

14

G. Inmates are not provided with adequate access to the

15 Courts . For example, the CIM-East law library has 'fifteen seats,

16 available only during limited hours on a first come first serve
17 basis , for 1 ,089 inmates. Inmates are not provided with regular 18 hours of access to the law libraries, but must choose between

19 outdoor exercise, showers [defendants encourage inmates to shower in
20 the open areas outdoors because of inadequate showers in the housing

21 units], commissary, and the law library.

22

H. Because of the overcrowding at CIM, there exists inadequate

23 education and work assignments to· alleviate the pressures and

24 restraints of CIM confinement.

25

28. The above mentioned conditions adversely affect inmates

26 during one of the most crucial periods of their state prison

27 confinement, while they are undoing tests and classifications that

28 determines how they will program for years in the future.

(12)

Reproduced from the holdings of the National Archives at Riverside

1

AI»m«SIRATIVE REMEDIES

2

29. The plaintiff class has attempted to file numerous oral

3 reports, written complaints, and administrative remedies and

4 administrative appeals concerning the above mentioned

5 unconstitutional conditions.

6

30. Inmate inquiries and requests for administrative remedies

7 have been ignored by the defendants and their employees and agents.

8 Inmates are told that the problem cannot be addressed by local

9 officials as the orders for the crowded conditions at the CIM

10 Reception Centers are coming from Department of Corrections

11 headquarters in Sacramento.

12

31. Members of the plaintiff class are not confined at CIM for

13 periods long enough to pursue effective administrative remedies, as

14 the California Department of Corrections administrative remedy

15 process does not function according to the time limits applicable to

16 those Regulations which govern its operation.

17

<DmJ«JJR; <lMROVERSY

18

32 . An equitable resolution of the dispute raised by the

19 allegations of the plaintiffs on their own behalf and for the class

20 they represent is required. Injunctive and declaratory relief is

21 necessary in that the dispute is continuing and cannot be resolved

22 by any available remedy at law.

23

CAUSES OF ACTI<B

24

33. The above described conditions in the Gymnasium in the CIM

25 Reception Guidance Center violate the constitutional rights of the 26 named plaintiffs and those in the class that they seek to represent:

27

A. By denying the plaintiffs and the class they represent the

28 right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, as guaranteed by

(13)

Reproduced from the holdings of the National Archives at Riverside

1 the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

2

B. By denying the plaintiffs and the class they represent the

3 right to access to the courts, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment

4 of the United States Constitution.

5

C. By denying the plaintiffs, and the class they represent,

6 due process and equal protection rights as guaranteed by the Fifth

7 and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

8

WBEREFORE, plaintiffs and the class they represent request that

9 this Court grant the following injunctive and declaratory relief:

10

A. A Preliminary Judgement · which limits overcrowding in CIM

11 facilities not designed as housing units .

12

B. A Declaratory Judgement that the acts, policies and

13 practices of the officials of the California Institution for Men

14 herein described and complained of· violate the plaintiffs rights

15 under the Constitution of the United States.

16

C. An Injunction which:

17

1. Defines the appropriate standards to be followed to

18 permanently correct the problems complained of in this complaint.

19

2. Requires the defendants to submit within 90 days of this

20 Court's judgement, orders, and declaration, a list of proposed

21 procedures, regulations, and physical plant improvements that comply

22 with this Court's judgement, orders, and declaration.

23

3. Sets a population cap for· each and every housing unit

24 and converted recreational and/or education unit at CIM-East, CIM-

25 West, and CIM-Central.

26

D. Reasonable costs of suit and attorney fees incurred herein.

27 Ill

28 Ill

(14)

Reproduced from the holdings of the National Archives at Riverside

1

E. Such other and further relief that this Court deems to be

2 appropriate arrl just.

3

4 Dated: July 10, 1987

5

JOON HAGAR

6

REBECCA JURADO

PAUL OOFFMAN

7

ACLU Foundation of

Southern California

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(15)

Reproduced from the holdings of the National Archives at Riverside

1

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

2

3

4
John ~agar declares:
5
I am over the age of 18 years, not a party to this action, a
6
member of the bar of this Court, am employed in Los Angeles County,
7
California. 8
On July 13, 1987 I deposited in the mail at Los Angeles, a copy 9
of the attached SECOND AMENDED OOMPLAINT in a sealed envelope, with
10
postage fully prepaid, addressed to:
11

12 CAROL SLATER FREDERICK
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
13 3580 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90010
14

15 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and

16 correct and that this declaration was executed on July 13, 1987 at
17 Los Angeles, California.

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(16)

National Archives and Records Administration The National Archives at Riverside
Record Group: 21, Records of District Courts of the United States Agency or Division: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Series: Civil Case Files, 1938-1995 Folder Title: 86-1989 Box Number: 176
For guidance citing records, ask for a copy of Citing Records in the National Archives of the United States (GIL 17) or view it at: www.archives.gov/publications/general_information_leaflets/17.html

 r - : - ,

.

DI

ST.

··r

-r---;D
OFF.

:

:

o::c YR.

:

:

K

:;;E:;T-T~FJ:JlftttlMii(;"UKli)dij~,_ealfrr:Ooiiimi1tlle"ntenltlo0l••lililia1r1tii!1g:Ssi•rntfl\e~r7afiwi;i~toftalltA•JMrcc~.'llliiitviiEei"~7iaf"jK_fll~r1ifiD"i~~W~r--T-:Ju;:;R~Y;-r--;D::o::c::K:ET;-­

NUMBER MO. DAY YR. J

N/ S O PTF o eF 23 $DEMAND MAG. NO. COUNTY OEM. YR. NUMBER

09/~1

~i <} !)

1

Nearest $1,000

J

.:-· _ ~ c:· ~ ,.").,_\

M / -.~ (.\ ))

/ o,;.,o : ~

H6 -:l. 'J\39

TITLE: CAUSE:

B0 Y})EN - V·-·!1 CCf-1li: THY CIJi'iP l.. l'/ V :t:O L.N l~/ R Hl.H 1.9 1l <10

=1:

:!. PLA

GE RALD C-i BCt Yl.IE ix

GER A LD G lW n n:.N I N F' RI.l }:' ER
C H X~O GUlD A NCE CNT R PO B 44 :1. C!-U NO

:J: · :~ Pl. ?1 FR I"lNK CANNJ :tZt1R O

j N PI·W PER

HOkA CE

T H O I1 A S

:J;

L) ))FT

DANl~L

MCCAkTHY

:1:

~·; DFT

OT XS

THLIRI-lAN

41:

6 l lF T

BOB 8 ALE S

.~.L3.C..J...-5o.A·~s8SRoH0OuNfALp--.W·netKhS.rg:JVL.e.e.:·Al·;l.lV-.s:eTSSAhsEJ.Nti.,Rnra-:e.g··DtC-eF·.EaB-RD..l-·.E-.ooeKiD-upfAf·E--luMeR-·ctPv·y-aI-'aC--1·:~AK~AJ·..d··,ftt'tto·~··o.r.:r5rn.~nt-·ni-he.ae.:yy·:F--:·~Gl··Go~.ee-o.nnTir.·ee.~---rr.aa. ·:l- 1··:-.."

Telephone· (213) 7o3r6nl.a 90010

.

-2194

#-'~

Attorneys for Defendants~ 4 ~ ~

I

Mr. Jones Parole Officer's 326 Ramona St., Hemet, CA . 92343 (714) 658-5138 atty fr pltf Frank Cannizzaro

JOHN HAGAR
REBECCA JURAOO
PAUL HOFFMAN ACLU Foundation of
Southern California 633 South Shatto Place Los Angeles, california 90005 (213) 487-1720
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

D CHECK HERE
IF CASE WAS FILED IN FORMA PAU PERIS

DATE

FILING FEES PAID' RECEIPT NUMBER

C.D. NUMBER

STATISTICAL CARDS

CARD

DATE MAILED

11-------t--------------~f-----------i J S-5 - - - - -- 11-------t--------------~f-----------i J S-6 - - - -- - -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCKET

DC 111 (Rev. 7/ 82

DATE

NR.

Reproduced rrom~the holdings of the National Archives at Riverside

GERALD GLEN BOYDEN

PROCEEDINGS

cv 86-1989 HLH (K)'

3/27/B6 r.m 1.

COMPLT fld . Petr notfd

Pd flg fee.

Sms issd & subm to Mag f.or review

2. Note & ORD of ref to Mag Kronenberg. Mld cpys

3-31-86 esl
4-14-86 esl 4/15/86 esl

3. Class actn stat is denied at this ti. Service of process is ordered on clefts Thurman & Bales. M. O.
4 . Pltf's motn for appointment of cnsl is DENIED at this ti. M.O.
5: ORO directing service of process by the USM to Otis Thurman. 6. ORO directing service of process by the USM to Bob Bales.
7. Second motn for appointment of cnsl. pltf, pro per 8. Memo of P&A w/ exhbts. pltf, pro per
9. Pltf's second motn fr appointment of ens! is DENIED at this ti. M.O.

5/2/86 esl · 10. Rtrn of smns, srvd s/c to: Bob Bales, Assoc. Superintendent, on 4/24/86. &
individual srvd ~f Jerry H. Lebo, officer on 4/24/86.
5-13-86 esl 11. ANSWER TO COMPLT . defts Otis Thurman

6-6-86 de 12 . Mtn of dft Bales to join answ of dft Thurman. dft. 6-16-86 esl 13. Note of PTC bef U.S. Hag Kronenberg in hrg room ff "M" of this crt on 8-22-86, lt

7-14-86 8/14/86

esf 14. Memo frm Laura Gamus elk~ fr Mag Kro'nenberg, re change of--address of Mr-. Cannizz<

,
est~

~otc

is of

under Mr. Jones association of

supervision, cnsl ·for - the

by telephone. pltfs prose,

Gerald

Glen

Boyden,

------ . . Frank

Cannizzaro, & Horace Thomas. Pltfs

8-21-86 esl 16. Stip & ORO (K) tht the PTC set for 8/22/86, lOAM. , be cont'd to 9/29/86, 2PM.
or as soon thereafter as the Crt is available.

8/26/86 esl 17. Declar of Rebecca Jurado in supprt of pltfs' motn to leave to amend the complt. 18. P/A supporting pltfs' motn for leave to amend thepleadings ; declar. Pltfs
19. Note of motn & motn for leave to amend the pleadings, retbl 9/2 2 /86, lOAM. Pltf LODGED Ord & A/C. (Fwd'd to CRO)
20. Note of motn & motn for clas s certification, 9/22/86, lOAM. Pltfs
LODGED ORO
21. P/A supporting Class Certification; declar of John Hagar; prop note. Pltfs

9/5/86 esl 22. Note of lodging ; corrected 1st A/C. PLtfs LODGED prop A/C. (Fwd'd to CRO)

9-12-86 esl 23. ORO (K) subst atty Gerald Glen Boyden in place of Rebecca Jurado. Pltfs

9-22-86 esl 9-23-86 esl

24. Statement of non-opp to pltfs' motn for class certification. Defts 25. Statement of non-opp to pltfs' motn for leave to amend the pleadings. Defts
26. Stip & ORO to cant motns for leave to amend the complt cont'd on 9/29./86, 10.A}l & class certification NLT 9/25/86; defts will fi their statement of non-

opp to these motns NLT 9/22/86.

27. ORO subst of atty Carol Slater Frederick in place of Robert Shaw . defts

9- 25-86 esl 28 . The PTC presently set for 9/29/86, 2:00PM. is tkn off cal until fur of the Crt.

9-29-86 sl 29. ORO the motn to fi the A/C is granted as to pltf Boyden only; defts hv 10 days to answer as ·to tht pltf. No subst of att"ys having fld for pltfs Cannizzaro
& Thomas, the motn to fi theA/Cas to those pltfs is denied w/o prej, but
will be· granted ex parte when a proper substitution is £ld. The motn for cl1 certification is cont'd to 10/20/86,10AM. , etc. The reference to the Mag is w/drawn; all subsequent mattrs will be heard by the crt, w/ the exception
q! discovery ma ttrs referred to the Mag. MO .
10-9-86 esl 30. Stip & ORO to extend ti to & including 11/9/86 for defts to r.es~ ~ to ~pt~fs~ to
answer complt.

IC .lllA Rev. 1/75)
PLAINTIFF

DATE

NR.

BOYDEN

Reproduced from the holdings of the NationalArchives at Riverside

CIVIL DOCKET CONTINUATION SHEET DEFENDANT
MCCARTHY
PROCEEDINGS

DOCKET NO. 86-1989 HL~
PAGE ...3.._0F__ PAGES

10/10/8~ esl

31. Status confer at court's invitation whether certain pltfs will join in
A/C & whether they will drop damage claim. Confer had between Court &
Cnsl. MO.

11/10/8 esl
11/12/86 esl 12/2/86 esl

32. ANSWER TO 1ST A/C & DEMAND FR J/T. Defts Daniel J. McCathy & Otis Thurman
33. ORD re: MSC set for 1/26/87, 9AM. 34. Declar of Rebecca Jurado in supprt of request for. substitution of cnsl. Pltf1
35. Jnt rpt of early meeting (L/R 6.1)

12/4/86 1/16/87

esl esl

36. Note & ORD of subst tht the pro se pltf, Horace Thomas hereby appoint ·attys
as cnsl. Pltfs
37. Note & ORD tht the prose pltf, Frank Cannizzaro hereby appoints attys as
cnsl. Pltfs
38. Jnt status rpt. defts

1/26/87 esl 39. First corrected A/C. Pltfs

1/26/87 esl 40. ORD establishing a discovery cut-off date of 6/1/87; setting the PTC for 7/2/87, 1:30PM.; setting 8/4/87, 9AM . for trial date.
41 . MSC hld. Crt sets discovery cutoff for 6/l/87,PTC is set for 7/2/87, 1:30PM.·
A 4 day; C/T is set for 8/4/87, 9AM. 1st corrected A/Cis fld this date &
previoulsy fld answer is deemed answer to said A/C. Pending motn for ord
for certification of class is granted & ord is signed this date. Crt sets
further status. confer for 3/19/87, 4:30PM. defts waive previously fld jury demand. MO. (K.H.)
42 . Stip & ORD to modify note of class actn.
43. ORD this actn shall proceed as a class actn on behalf of all prisoners confinEd in the Gymnasiumof the Receptio~ Guidance Center of the Calif. Institute fo1 Men. Until 30 days bef the date of trial copies of the note attached hereto as Exhibit "A" & incorporated by reference, shall be posted for prisoner inspection on each wall of the reception Guidance Center Gymnasium & in all
libraries at the Calif. Institute for Men, & defts shall make good faith
efforts to keep copies of said not e posted in legible frm w/in the
Gymnasium & libraries.
2/3/87 esl 44. Ex parte applic for ord ext'g ti for .production of documents. Defts LODGED Ord.

2/11/87 esl 45. Statement of non-opp t o defts ' ex-parte request for extension; declarn of John Hagar. Pltfs

2/17/87 esl 46. ORD ext'g ti for production of documents for deft D. J . McCarthy may be extended to 3/11/87 .

3-20-87 esl +/10/87 esl "'\/13/87 esl
4-29-87 esl

47. Note of cont the status confer for 3-19-87, 4 :30PM. to a telephone status confer cal for 4/13/87, 8:30AM. Pltfs
48. Jnt status rept.
49. Status Confer re state of the settlement. Cnsl present by conf call & disc
case status. Crt sets another status confer of this same type for 5/5/87,
8:30AM. & crt will place the conf call. MO (K.H)
50 •. ~tatus rept . Pltfs

OVER -(GO TO PAGE 4)

DC lllA (Rev. 1/ 75)
PLAINTIFF

Reproduced from the holdings of the Natim1aT Archives at Riverside
CIVIL DOCKET CONTINUATION SHEET DEFENDANT

' BOYDEN, ET AL.

DATE

NR.

McCARTHY, ET· AL. ,
PROCEEDINGS

DOCKET NO. 86- 1989
PAGE~OF_ _ PAGE

5-5-87

esl 51. Status Confer. Cnsl present by confer call & discuss case status. Matter
is cont'd for further status confer by phone to 6-8-87, 8:30AM. w/ the cr
to place call. Deft cnsl to prepare & fi written status rpet by 6-1-87.
MO. (K.H)

6-2-87 . cw 52 . Stat rpt. Deft.

6-8-87 esl
6-18-87 esl 7-13-87 sa 7-20-87 esl
7-31-87 esl 8-13-87 esl

53 . Status confer by confer call. Cnsl present by confer call & discuss status.
Mattr not likely to settle at this ti. Pltf cnsl informs crt of his intent
to expand the law suit & crt directs pltf to prepare a prop amended complt & submit to deft NLT 6/19/87 for either a stip to fi amended complt, or in a motn to fi amended complt shall be prepared & fld. Further status confer
set 6/22/87, 4:30PM. & cnsl to be present . MO. (n/reptr)

54. Note of flg of draft of 2nd A/C. Pltfs 55. SECOND AMENDED COMPLT. pltfs.

56. Stip to cent trial set for 8-4-87 & to re-open discvry schedule; & ORD tht
pltf promptly moves to amend its complt or obtain a stip for flg A/C as
previously discussed w/ crt. A new status confer is set for 9-21-87, 9A
at which ti the actn should be at issue, & new PTC & trial date will

~_.._:_.,

Stip

be set.
& ORD to

extend

ti

to

8-14-87

for

clefts

to

answer

2nd

A/C

& to

cant

th

status confer frm 9-21-87, 9AM. to 10-5-87, 9AM.

58. ANSWER TO SECOND A/C & DEMAND FOR J/T. Defts

10-2-87 10-5-87
10-5-87

esl esl
esl

59. Jnt status rept .
60. ORD establishing a discvry cut-off date of 8-1-88; PTC set for 9-2-88, 1:30 setting October, 1988 as the month during -which trial will commence; re p for C/T on liability.
61. Cnsl present in chambers & MSC hld. Crt sets discvry cutoff for 8-1-88; PTC
is set for 9-2-88, 1:30PM.; Trial by Crt is set for the month of October,
w/ the exact date to be set at the PTC. (Trial estimate set for 12 days) A
status confer is set for 7-25-88, 3:30PM. to discuss trial mechanics. MO.
(n/reptr)

6-1-88 esl 7-12-88 esl 7/14/88 esl
8/1/88 esl

62. Stip & ORD tht pltfs shall hv 30 days frm the filing date of this stip to
answer clefts' 1st set of interrogatories, which hv already been srvd.
63. Stipulated request for status confer set for 7/14/888, at 1:15PM. clefts
64. Status Confer re Rule 9 preparation: Crt ORD cnsl present in chambers &
discuss trial preparation w/ respect to Rule 9. Crt sets an estimated
4 day C/T for 10/4/88, 8:30AM. Pltf to submit to deft & crt a list of issues to be tried on or bef 8/15/88. Parties to confer & agree on a sti & ord to modify PTC procedures on or bef 8/15/88. Motn to compel as to outstanding interrogatories may be fld on or bef 8/15/88, & further ans~
may be postponed until 1 week after receipt of listAf issues to be tried. MO. (n/reptr)
65 . Stip & ORD to extend tht the due date for the stipulated prop for the
modification of Rule 9 procedures be extended to 8/22/88. The pleading is currently due on 8/15/88. FUR STIPULATED tht clefts will fi a pleading
reassessing & limiting as appropriate their affirmative defenses by 8/22/S

8/5/8~ esl 66. Pretrial memo re triable issues . pltfs
OVER (GO TO PAGE 5)

I
DC !llA
.:flev. 1/7~) \
PLAINTIFF

Rir:(; Nolio'ft.Ti"" ol Rep•odUced f•om the hold;ngs ofthe
CIVIL DOCKET CONTINUATION SHEET DEFENDANT

GERALD GLEN BOYDEN s ET AI.. ,

D. J. MCCARTHY: OTIS THURMAN: & BOB
BAILESs

DATE

NR.

PROCEEDINGS

/ol r
DOCKET No.86-1989 HLtf(
PAGE _5_ OF_ _ PAGES

8/22/88 esl 8/25/88 esl
8/25/88 esl 9/20/88 esl

67. Stip re Rule 9 Ord; issues to be reviewed by the crt. Pltfs
68. Status confer re trial preparation problems. Crt ORD tht Crt & cnsl confer. As to items posed to the crt, on items 1-6, declars of prisoners to be submitted by 9/13/88, w/ deft able to depose declarants by 9/30/88. Item 7, deft to submit declars subject to cross exam of Dept. of Corrections personnel at trial. Item 8, population statistics to be given up to the date of trial; disciplinary repts up to 9/1/88 w/o prej to further applic. Watch rosters to be given as of 9/23/88. The PTC is cont'd frm 9/2/88 to 9/23/88, 3PM. Trial is to remain set 10/4/88. MO. (n/reptr)
69. Stip re population projection & construction plans. Pltfs 70. Stip & ORD tht the PTC date of 9/23/88, be vacated because cnsl are working
diliegently toward settlement & expect tht they can avert a trial. Further stipulated a status confer be scheduled for 9/26/88, 3:30PM.

9/26/88

esl 71 . Status Confer re settlemtn: Crt ord cnsl & crt confer. Cnsl advise crt of
tentative settlement subject to final approval. Cnsl to contact clerk for confer call on 9/29/88 in this regard. MO. (n/reptr)

-9/26/88 esl 72. Stip re filing of doc, the doc is fld w/ the Understanding tht it is not find Pltfs

9/29/88 esl 10/3/88 esl
10/3/81 esl

73. Memo of understanding. Defts LODGED prop Ord.
74. Ex parte applic for atty fees. Pltfs LODGED prop Ord.
75. Declar of John Hagar . pltfs

10/3/88

esl 76. ORD the PTC & trial dates are vacated, subject to resetting if the suit is reactivated by a claimed failure to comply w/ the Memo of Understading; the actn is stayed until 7/30/89, unless sooner reactivated for good cause the trial date of 10/4/88 is vacated subject to resetting, if necessary. Following the dismissal of this actn w/ prej on or after 7/30/89, the dismissal w/ prej shall not be construed to prevent new litigation on
constitutional claims alleged to be in existence following the date of dismissal. The parties are to fi a status rept on or bef 8/10/89.
(ENT 10/5/88) Mld cpys & notes to all ptys. ~-

10/6/88 esl 77. ORD pltf's applic for atty fees in the amt of $22,000 is ereby granted. 12/12/88 esl 78. Affid & req for issuance of W/E in favor pltfs & agnst d fts. ISSD W/E.

1/18/89 esl 79. W/E, returned not executed (Reason" Complt is being amended) 1/19/89 esl 80. Affid &- req for issuance of Alias W/E in favor of pltfs & agnst defts. ISSD W/~

8/7/89 esl 81.• .Jnt status rept & request for status confer.

8-11-89 esl 10-2-89 esl

87.. Crt ORD setting status confer in this matter is hereby set for 10-2-89, 8:30~ MO. (n/reptr)
83. ORD this actn 1s dismissed w/ prej. Pltfs' applic for atty fees in the amt
of $22,000 is hereby grntd. (ENT 10/4/89) Mld cpys to all ptys w/notcs.

11/3/89

ca 84. Affid & requst for issuance of 2nd Alias of W/E. I s sd W/E.
85. Alias w/F..

., -:..

i

• :i.

_,

I

DC lllA (Rev. 1/75)
PLAINTIFF

DATE

NR.

Reproduced from the holdings of the National Archives at Rivf!rside

CIVIL DOCKET CONTINUATION SHEET DEFENDANT
PROCEEDINGS

DOCKETNO. -------PAGE6__0F_ _ PAGES

7-25-9( lf 86. Retn of USM-285 for 2nd alias W/E served on Bank of America, (Writ is to be levied agnst acct #14828005 at the Bank of America@ 900 8th St., Sacramento, Ca 95814, which is an acct of the Calif Dept of corrections.; Retn USM-285 for 2nd alias W/E served on Bank of America by serving Lena Sgheiza, authorized officer on 11-14-89; Retn of Orig 2nd alias W/E ent in favor of Gerald Glen Boyden, Frank Cannizzaro, Horace Thomas, & all similarly situated & agnst D. J. McCarthy, indiv, & in his· official capacity as Director of the Calif Dept of correct ions; Otis Thurman, indiv & in his official capacity as superintendent of the Calif Institution for Men, Bob Bales, indiv & in his official capacity as Associate Superintendent of the Ca Institute for Men.

}of· .
•• -!'

. . /

National Archives and Records Administration The National Archives at Riverside
Record Group: 21, Records of District Comis ofThe United States Agency or Division: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California,
Central Division Series: Civil Dockets, 1938-1992 Folder Title: 86-CV-1989 Box Number: 310
For guidance citing records, ask for a copy of Citing Records in the National Archives ofthe United States (GIL 17) or view it at: www.archives.gov/publications/general_information_leaflets/17.html


This case litigated by the ACLU in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dealt with sanitation, classification, legal access and other conditions at the California Institute for Men (Chino).  In 1988, the prison and the plaintiffs entered a settlement agreement, which provided for various improvements and compliance monitoring that ended in 1993.