Mendoza v. County of Tulare
| Decision Date | 05 January 1982 |
| Citation | 180 Cal.Rptr. 347,128 Cal.App.3d 403 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Ramon MENDOZA, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF TULARE, et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 4905. |
This is a prisoners' class action challenging the conditions at Tulare County Jail. The trial court dismissed the action after granting respondents' general demurrer without leave to amend.
The complaint was filed on November 1, 1978. Appellants allege, in ten causes of action, various violations of the federal and state constitutions, the Federal Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983), and the California Penal and Health and Safety Codes. The pleadings sought: (1) certification of plaintiff inmates as a class; (2) submission and implementation of a plan whereby the alleged grievances could be resolved; (3) if such a plan was not feasible, declaratory and injunctive relief restraining defendant from maintaining the unlawful procedures and jail conditions; and (4) that the court retain jurisdiction until those conditions were corrected to the court's satisfaction.
On January 17, 1979, respondents filed a general demurrer arguing that appellants did not have standing to sue and that an action did not lie against Tulare County officials; in a supplemental memorandum they asserted that no community of interest existed between members of appellants' class. Supplemental memoranda were filed by both sides up to February 20, 1979.
On March 19, 1979, the court granted respondents' demurrer, without leave to amend, on the following grounds: (1) community of interest did not exist among the members of the class; (2) because writs of habeas corpus would more quickly and efficiently remedy appellants' grievances, exercise of declaratory relief jurisdiction was not necessary or proper at the time under the circumstances. The court also took judicial notice of the fact that the four named plaintiff inmates had been convicted and sentenced and were, at the time of the ruling, incarcerated in state penal institutions. 1
On May 9, 1979, the court entered a judgment dismissing appellants' action. This appeal ensued.
Material facts alleged in the complaint are treated as true for the purpose of ruling on a demurrer. (Gruenberg v. Aetna Ins. Co. (1973) 9 Cal.3d 566, 572, 108 Cal.Rptr. 480, 510 P.2d 1032.) The following is a summary of facts alleged in appellants' complaint.
The named plaintiffs below were Ramon Mendoza, Carl James, Simon Duarte, Henry Borbon, and John McAllister. At the time the complaint was filed, Mendoza, James, Duarte and Borbon were incarcerated in Tulare County Jail. Mendoza and Duarte were convicted prisoners serving sentences; James and Borbon were being held for the duration of their respective trials. McAllister was a Tulare County resident and taxpayer.
The inmate plaintiffs brought the action on behalf of all other persons incarcerated in Tulare County Jail serving sentences or awaiting trial on pending charges. All members of the class, which numbered in excess of 250 persons, lived under similar conditions in the jail.
The defendants were the County of Tulare and, in their official capacities, the county chief executive officer, the sheriff, the undersheriff, the captain of the jail, and each member of the county board of supervisors.
Tulare County Jail is a five-story structure containing approximately 250 prisoners in various stages of criminal proceedings. 2 Prisoners are housed in both single and common cells. The cells are crowded, windowless, and cell lighting is controlled from outside the cell by jail officers. Heating and ventilation are poor, and cell toilets are not partitioned.
A licensed physician is not on the premises or otherwise immediately available. A nurse is on duty certain days of the week, but inmates often must wait as long as two weeks to see her. Doctor visits are reserved for those with obvious and serious medical problems, and the wait for these visits might likewise be two weeks. Unsanitary facilities and lack of routine diagnostic and preventative services encourage the spread of disease and inmates are not permitted to possess even lawfully-prescribed medication. Dentists are not available for routine services.
The jail does not maintain special treatment or rehabilitative facilities for inmates suffering from drug addiction. As a result, these prisoners are forced to go through narcotics withdrawal, thus creating a danger to themselves and to others.
The jail maintains no law library for inmates' use. As a result, inmates awaiting trial and those wishing to file habeas corpus petitions are deprived of adequate legal preparation. The jail likewise has no general library for recreational reading. Inmates are further deprived of many publications, including "Inside Out," a periodical dedicated to explaining the rights and reporting the problems of local detention facility inmates.
On days inmates must appear in court, they are awakened at 3:30 a. m. and are kept in a "holding tank" for as long as three hours without blankets or mattresses. They are then transferred to a similar holding tank at court.
The county does not provide educational, rehabilitative or vocational training programs. Recreation is limited to a maximum one-half hour per week on a "sun deck" that is insufficient to allow physical exercise. Inmates frequently go three weeks without sun deck time. Televisions are, however, placed in hallways every other night.
Visitation privileges are limited to one-half hour per week in a booth that does not allow contact. Inmates are frequently deprived of visits on the ground that the booth is "unavailable." Moreover, inmates are not permitted to receive incoming phone calls. They may make outgoing calls with permission, but permission is subject to a deputy's discretion and is rarely granted. Mail is picked up at the officers' convenience, sometimes as early as 1:00 to 3:00 a. m.
Jail inmates are not adequately segregated, so that those with known propensities for violence and/or homosexual assault are housed with the general population, and those convicted of serious crimes are housed with misdemeanants in common cells. Those awaiting trial are not separated from convicts.
Meals are often cold, and sanitation is minimal. For example, beverages are served by dipping inmates' cups into a large vessel. As a result, ashes, dirt and the like are introduced into the vat upon each serving. Inmates are restricted to three showers per week; they often receive fewer. Each inmate is issued one towel per week. Clothing is limited to one pair of overalls and three pair of underwear per week.
Jail regulations are not posted throughout the jail and are not otherwise made available to prisoners. Inmates are not advised that they have a right to a hearing before discipline is imposed.
Finally, inmates are not accessible to voter registration, though many are eligible to vote, and are frequently not permitted to participate in religious services.
Although the complaint at times ascribed the jail conditions to actions of the defendants collectively, it did not otherwise allege individual responsibility on the part of any named defendant.
Release of Inmate Appellants Did Not Render Their Claims Moot.
In its order granting respondents' demurrer below, the trial court noted that the four named prisoner plaintiffs had been released or transferred from Tulare County Jail. It did not expressly rule that this fact mooted the class action. Nonetheless, respondent urges that the prisoners' claims were then moot since they were no longer inmates of the jail.
With respect to the named plaintiffs who were pretrial detainees--i.e., plaintiffs James and Borbon--respondents' argument is without merit. As appellants note, the United States Supreme Court has rejected mootness claims in cases where pretrial detainees are released or transferred subsequent to the filing of their complaint. (See Bell v. Wolfish (1979) 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1867, fn. 5, 60 L.Ed.2d 447; Gerstein v. Pugh (1975) 420 U.S. 103, 110, fn. 11, 95 S.Ct. 854, 861, fn. 11, 43 L.Ed.2d 54.) The court reasoned that the temporary and relatively brief duration of pretrial detention renders the claims of such detainees "capable of repetition, yet evading review," thus fulfilling the requirement of United States Constitution, article III. (Wolfish, supra, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. at p. 1867, fn. 5, 60 L.Ed.2d 447; Gerstein, supra, 420 U.S. at p. 110, 95 S.Ct. at p. 861, fn. 11.)
Respondent places undue emphasis on the fact that the plaintiffs in Bell v. Wolfish were detainees at the time the class was certified. (Bell v. Wolfish, supra, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. at p. 1867, fn.5.) The court therein did not see that fact as controlling. In fact, it noted other factors negating mootness: live controversy between petitioners therein and members of the class represented by the named respondents, and the temporary nature of confinement at New York's Metropolitan Correctional Center. In Gerstein the court noted that although the plaintiffs in that case were detainees at the time their complaint was filed, the record was unclear as to whether they remained in custody at the time the class was certified. (Gerstein, supra, 420 U.S. at p. 110, fn. 11, 95...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hefczyc v. Rady Children's Hospital-San Diego
...the standard class action certification requirements that our Supreme Court has consistently applied. ( Mendoza v. County of Tulare (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 403, 416, 180 Cal.Rptr. 347 [in a case seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of jail inmates, the court applied the rule th......
-
GIRALDO v. Cal. Dep't of Corr.
...( Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fales (1973) 8 Cal.3d 712, 715-716, 106 Cal.Rptr. 21, 505 P.2d 213; see also Mendoza v. County of Tulare (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 403, 413, 180 Cal.Rptr. 347.) We will not exercise any such discretion here. To begin with, the issues plaintiff presents are essentially......
-
In re Lugo
...lie in habeas corpus"]) and from state courts (e.g., Wilson v. Superior Court (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 1259, 1262 ; Mendoza v. County of Tulare (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 403, 420 ["a trial court may grant habeas corpus petitioners `prospective or class relief' to redress recurring deprivations of ......
-
Capitol People First v. Dds, A113168.
...all claims focused on whether class members were misclassified as exempt from overtime laws. (See also Mendoza v. County of Tulare (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 403, 407, 417, 180 Cal.Rptr. 347 [rejecting defendants' assertion that plaintiff-prisoners' right to relief based on 10 causes of action a......