Osegueda v. Stanislaus County Public Safety Center, CA, Amended Complaint, Solitary Conditions and Classification, 2017
Download original document:
Document text
Document text
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 AMBER H LUNSFORD ( CSB No. 276908) LUNSFORD LEGAL GROUP, P.C. 1202 H Street, Suite A Modesto, CA 95354 Telephone: (209) 857-8608 LOREN L. LUNSFORD, ESQ. ( CSB No. 213966) THE LUNSFORD LAW FIRM 980 Ninth Street, 16th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 575-8846 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Armando Osegueda, Robert Palomino, David Lomeli, Jairo Hernandez 9 10 11 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ARMANDO OSEGUEDA; ROBERT PALOMINO, DAVID LOMELI, JAIRO HERNANDEZ ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) STANISLAUS COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY ) CENTER, STANISLAUS COUNTY ) SHERIFF’S OFFICE, ADAM ) CHRISTIANSON, Stanislaus County ) Sheriff, BILL DUNCAN, Captain of Adult ) Detention, LIEUTENANT GREG CLIFTON, ) Unit 1 and Unit 2 Commander, ) LIEUTENANT RONALD LLOYD, ) Commander of Bureau Administrative ) Services, SERGEANT STEVEN VERVER, ) and JAMES SHELTON ) Defendants. ) ) Case No. 1:16-cv-01218-LJO-DLB SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Lunsford Legal Group 1 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 2 INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiffs and class bring claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, the First, Fourth, 3 Fifth, and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution for objectively 4 unconstitutional conditions at the Public Safety Center B-Max Unit (“B-Max”), where 5 they, and others similarly situated, are subjected to sensory deprivation and excessive 6 force with no opportunity to challenge their placement or classification or afforded the 7 opportunity to express their concerns and opinions regarding their classification. 8 2. Plaintiffs and class further bring claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, the First, 9 Fourth, Fifth, and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution for objectively 10 unconstitutional conditions in the “Active Norteño Tanks” (“Active Tanks”) at the 11 Stanislaus County Men’s Jail (“Men’s Jail”), where they, and others similarly situated, 12 are subjected to decrepit conditions and excessive force, including, but not limited to, the 13 use of flash-bang grenades on closed tiers and the use of rubber bullets, beanbag type 14 rounds, and/or dummy rounds while they are behind closed bars. Detainees at the 15 Men’s Jail are likewise afforded no opportunity to challenge their placement or 16 classification or afforded the opportunity to express their concerns and opinions 17 regarding their classification. 18 19 3. Plaintiffs allege that placement and classification are conducted under a written formal and unwritten informal policy that is inherently racially-based. 20 21 22 23 I. 4. JURISDICTION AND VENUE Plaintiffs and class bring claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, the First, Fourth, Fifth, and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution. 5. This Court has jurisdiction over claims seeking declaratory or injunctive relief 24 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343, as well as the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 25 §§2201 and 2202. 26 6. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 27 §1391(b)(2) in that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims 28 brought by Plaintiffs and the class have occurred in this District. Lunsford Legal Group 2 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT II. 1 2 A. PARTIES Plaintiffs 3 7. Plaintiff Armando Osegueda is a 35 year-old pretrial detainee who was taken 4 into the care and custody of the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department on March 18, 5 2012. 6 7 8. Mr. Osegueda was initially housed in the Active Tanks at the Men’s Jail, until October 2012, when he was told to “roll up” and was moved to B-Max. 8 9. Mr. Osegueda has spent nearly four years housed in B-Max, due to his 9 classification as a member of a criminal street gang, to wit, Norteño, and his pending 10 charges of violations of California Penal Code section 187, murder. Mr. Osegueda has 11 had no significant rule violations since his detention began in March 2012. 12 10. In or about May 2016, Mr. Osegueda was issued a green and white jumpsuit, 13 denoting administrative segregation (as opposed to the red and white jumpsuit denoting 14 maximum security that he wore while in B-Max) 15 16 11. tank at the Men’s Jail, but could be returned to B-Max without warning or hearing. 17 18 In or about August 2016, Mr. Osegueda was rehoused in an active Norteño 12. On January 20, 2017, Mr. Osegueda was transported to, and re-housed in B- Max without warning or hearing. 19 13. Plaintiff Robert Palomino is a 47 year-old pretrial detainee who was brought 20 into the care and custody of the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department on February 26, 21 2013. 22 14. Mr. Palomino spent more than three years in B-Max, due to his classification 23 as a member of a criminal street gang, to wit, Norteño and pending charges for violations 24 of California Penal Code section 187, murder. He has had no serious rule violations since 25 his detention began in 2013. 26 15. In or about May 2016, Mr. Palomino was given a green and white jumpsuit, 27 denoting administrative segregation (as opposed to the red and white jumpsuit denoting 28 maximum security that he wore while in B-Max) and was rehoused in an active Norteño Lunsford Legal Group 3 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 tank at the Men’s Jail. Mr. Palomino may be returned to B-Max without warning or 2 hearing. 3 16. 4 Max without warning or hearing. 5 6 On January 20, 2017, Mr. Palomino was transferred back to and re-housed B- 17. Plaintiff David Lomeli has been in the care and custody of the Stanislaus County Sheriff since April 22, 2013. 7 18. Mr. Lomeli denies any gang membership. 8 19. Mr. Lomeli has never received a classification review 9 20. Mr. Lomeli is housed in an Active Tank at the Men’s Jail. 10 21. Plaintiff Jairo Hernandez was in the care and custody of the Stanislaus 11 County Sheriff’s Office from December 15, 2015 through January 24, 2017, when charges 12 were dismissed against him. 13 14 15 22. B. Jairo Hernandez was housed in the Active Tanks at the Men’s Jail. Defendants 23. Defendant Adam Christianson is the elected Stanislaus County Sheriff. As 16 such, he has caused, created, authorized, condoned, ratified, approved, or knowingly 17 acquiesced in the illegal, unconstitutional, and inhumane conditions, actions, policies, 18 customs, and practices that prevail in B-Max and the Active Tanks, as described below. 19 He has trained officers and condoned and participated in a culture of excessive force that 20 is used against pretrial detainees in locked cells during simple cell searches. He has been 21 made personally aware of the conditions and deprivations at B-Max through, inter alia, 22 meetings with the Stanislaus County Criminal Defense Bar. He has, therefore, directly 23 and proximately caused, and will continue to cause in the future, the violations of the 24 rights set forth below. Defendant Christianson is being sued in his official capacity only. 25 24. Defendant Greg Clifton is the Public Safety Center Facilities Commander. As 26 such, he has caused, created, authorized, condoned, ratified, approved, or knowingly 27 acquiesced in the illegal, unconstitutional, and inhumane conditions, actions, policies, 28 customs, and practices that prevail in B-Max, as described below. He has trained officers Lunsford Legal Group 4 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 and condoned and participated in a culture of excessive force that is used against pretrial 2 detainees in locked cells during simple cell searches. He has been made personally aware 3 of the conditions and deprivations in B-Max by, inter alia, grievances and complaints 4 made by Plaintiffs and others similarly situated. His responses have demonstrated a lack 5 of regard for the constitutional rights of pretrial detainees and a deliberate indifference to 6 the deprivations and harms suffered by the Plaintiffs in his care. He has, therefore, 7 directly and proximately caused, and will continue to cause in the future, the injuries and 8 violations of rights set forth below. Defendant Clifton is sued in his official capacity only. 9 25. Defendant Bill Duncan is the Public Safety Center Facilities Captain. As such, 10 he has caused, created, authorized, condoned, ratified, approved, or knowingly 11 acquiesced in the illegal, unconstitutional, and inhumane conditions, actions, policies, 12 customs, and practices that prevail in B-Max, as described below. He has trained officers 13 and condoned and participated in a culture of excessive force that is used against pretrial 14 detainees in locked cells during simple cell searches. He has been made personally aware 15 of the conditions and deprivations in B-Max by, inter alia, grievances and complaints 16 made by Plaintiffs and others similarly situated. His responses have demonstrated a lack 17 of regard for the constitutional rights of pretrial detainees and a deliberate indifference to 18 the deprivations and harms suffered by the Plaintiffs in his care. He has, therefore, 19 directly and proximately caused, and will continue to cause in the future, the injuries and 20 violations of rights set forth below. Defendant Duncan is sued in his official capacity 21 only. 22 26. Defendant Ronald Lloyd is the Captain of the Correctional Emergency 23 Response Team (“CERT”) and the Commander of the Facility Training Officer Program. 24 As such, he has caused, created, authorized, condoned, ratified, approved, or knowingly 25 acquiesced in the illegal, unconstitutional, and inhumane conditions, actions, policies, 26 customs, and practices that prevail in B-Max and Active Tanks, as described below. He 27 has trained officers and condoned and participated in a culture of excessive force that is 28 used against pretrial detainees in locked cells during simple cell searches. He has been Lunsford Legal Group 5 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 made personally aware of the conditions and deprivations in B-Max and Active Tanks by, 2 inter alia, grievances and complaints made by Plaintiffs and others similarly situated. His 3 responses have demonstrated a lack of regard for the constitutional rights of pretrial 4 detainees and a deliberate indifference to the deprivations and harms suffered by the 5 Plaintiffs in his care. 6 continue to cause in the future, the injuries and violations of rights set forth below. 7 Defendant Lloyd is sued in his official capacity only. 8 27. He has, therefore, directly and proximately caused, and will Defendant Steven Verver, a sergeant at the Public Safety Center, has 9 personally responded to repeated requests, complaints, and grievances about the 10 unconstitutional conditions at B-Max by claiming, inter alia, that “Gang members are not 11 attempting to rehabilitate themselves.” 12 demonstrated a reckless disregard for the care, safety, and rights of pretrial detainees in 13 his care. Defendant Verver has, through word and action, demonstrated a willingness to 14 keep Plaintiffs in harsh and unduly restrictive conditions unconstitutionally. As such, he 15 has caused, created, authorized, condoned, ratified, approved, or knowingly acquiesced 16 in the illegal, unconstitutional, and inhumane conditions, actions, policies, customs, and 17 practices that prevail in B-Max and Active Tanks, as described below. He has been made 18 personally aware of the conditions and deprivations in B-Max by, inter alia, grievances 19 and complaints made by Plaintiffs and others similarly situated. His responses have 20 demonstrated a lack of regard for the constitutional rights of pretrial detainees and a 21 deliberate indifference to the deprivations and harms suffered by the Plaintiffs in his care. 22 He has, therefore, directly and proximately caused, and will continue to cause in the 23 future, the injuries and violations of rights set forth below. Defendant Verver is sued in 24 his official capacity only. 25 28. Sergeant Verver has, in his official capacity, Defendant James Shelton is the classification officer that deals most directly 26 with Plaintiffs and others similarly situated. In his official capacity, Defendant Shelton is 27 in charge of classification assignments, housing assignments, and debriefs. Defendant 28 Shelton permitted Plaintiffs, Mr. Osegueda and Mr. Palomino, and those similarly Lunsford Legal Group 6 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 situated, to languish in harsh restrictive conditions in B-Max, without classification 2 review in accordance with written policy, and has denied them any opportunity to 3 challenge their classification. 4 demonstrated a willingness to keep Plaintiffs in harsh and unduly restrictive conditions 5 unconstitutionally. He has explained, after persons similarly situated to Plaintiffs have 6 been harmed, that everything they do, “we do for a reason.” Defendant Shelton has 7 suggested that if Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were unhappy with their 8 housing, they could always debrief. 9 condoned, ratified, approved, or knowingly acquiesced in the illegal, unconstitutional, 10 and inhumane conditions, actions, policies, customs, and practices that prevail in B-Max 11 and Active Tanks, as described below. 12 conditions and deprivations in B-Max and Active Tanks by, inter alia, grievances and 13 complaints made by Plaintiffs and others similarly situated. 14 demonstrated a lack of regard for the constitutional rights of pretrial detainees and a 15 deliberate indifference to the deprivations and harms suffered by the Plaintiffs in his care. 16 He has, therefore, directly and proximately caused, and will continue to cause in the 17 future, the injuries and violations of rights set forth below. Defendant Shelton is sued in 18 his official capacity only. 19 III. 20 21 Defendant Shelton has, through word and action, As such, he has caused, created, authorized, He has been made personally aware of the His responses have STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Facts relating to Plaintiffs housed in B-Max 29. Plaintiffs Armando Osegueda and Robert Palomino each sues on his own 22 behalf and as a representative of those similarly situated who have been housed in the 23 Stanislaus County Public Safety Center (“PSC”) maximum security unit, also known as 24 Unit B or B-Max (“B-Max”) without meaningful review of his placement. 25 26 27 28 Lunsford Legal Group 30. Mr. Osegueda was placed into the care and custody of the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department on March 12, 2012. 31. Plaintiff Armando Osegueda is a 35 year old man, who has been housed in B- Max from October 17, 2012 until August 2016, a period of nearly four years. 7 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 32. Mr. Osegueda did not receive a classification review for nearly four years 2 while housed in B-Max, in violation of Sheriff’s Department written policy that states all 3 detainees will be granted a classification review every 3 months. 4 33. Mr. Osegueda was granted downgrade packet on or about May 2016, but was 5 never afforded the opportunity to challenge his classification or present his views 6 regarding his classification. 7 34. Mr. Osegueda was granted a green and white jumpsuit, denoting 8 administrative segregation rather than the red and white jumpsuit (which denotes 9 maximum security) that he has been wearing since his incarceration on June 26, 2016 but 10 was denied movement to a less restrictive housing unit until August 2016. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 35. Mr. Osegueda was moved to an “Active Norteño tank” at the Men’s Jail on or about August 2016, but may be returned to B-Max without warning or hearing. 36. Mr. Osegueda was returned to B-Max, without warning or hearing on January 20, 2017. 37. As of January 30, 2017, Mr. Osegueda has not been afforded a hearing or classification review regarding his return to B-Max. 38. Plaintiff Robert Palomino was placed into the care and custody of the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department on February 26, 2013. 39. Mr. Palomino is a 47 year old man, who was housed in B-Max from February 26, 2013 to in or about May 2016, a period of more than three years. 40. Mr. Palomino did not receive a classification review, where he could 22 challenge his classification or present his views, while housed in B-Max, in violation of 23 Sheriff’s Department written policy that states all detainees will be granted a 24 classification review every 3 months. 25 41. Mr. Palomino repeatedly requested to be downgraded from B-Max. 26 42. In or about May 2016, Mr. Palomino was pulled from his cell and escorted 27 into a room with Defendants Shelton and Verver, and Sergeant Martinez. Defendant 28 Verver presented Mr. Palomino with his grievance that had been submitted to Lieutenant Lunsford Legal Group 8 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 Lloyd, asked him to review it, and it included a response from Defendant Lloyd, that 2 informed him that although he agreed with Sergeant Verver’s response, he elected to 3 remove Mr. Palomino from B-Max. 4 43. In or about May 2016, Mr. Palomino was granted a green and white jumpsuit, 5 denoting administrative segregation rather than the red and white jumpsuit (which 6 denotes maximum security) that he has been wearing since his incarceration on February 7 26, 2013. 8 44. 9 about May 2016, but may be returned to B-Max without warning or hearing. 10 45. 11 20, 2017. 12 46. 13 14 Mr. Palomino was moved to an “Active Norteño tank” at the Men’s Jail in or Mr. Palomino was returned to B-Max, without warning or hearing on January As of January 30, 2017, Mr. Palomino has not received a classification review or hearing. 47. Plaintiffs Armando Osegueda and Robert Palomino, and those similarly 15 situated, are pretrial detainees. 16 situated are housed at PSC simply because they cannot post bail or are awaiting trial 17 without bail. 18 48. Mr. Osegueda, Mr. Palomino, and others similarly Mr. Osegueda, Mr. Palomino, and those similarly situated are pretrial 19 detainees. As such, they are presumed innocent, yet they suffer harsher conditions and 20 greater deprivations than those imposed on prisoners incarcerated through the California 21 Department of Corrections. 22 49. There are currently 15 pretrial detainees housed in B-Max who are classified 23 as active Norteño or Northern Hispanic gang members. Those detainees have been 24 housed in segregation for periods ranging between five months to seven years. Half of 25 those pretrial detainees have been housed in segregation without meaningful review for 26 more than three years. 27 28 50. There are currently pretrial detainees who have been housed in B-Max for more than ten years while awaiting trial. Lunsford Legal Group 9 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 51. Administrative segregation is over-used in the Stanislaus County jail system. 2 52. The majority of pretrial detainees who are housed in administrative 3 4 segregation are housed there for non-disciplinary reasons. 53. Pretrial detainees such as Mr. Osegueda, Mr. Palomino, and others similarly 5 situated, who are awaiting trial, suffer years of confinement in B-Max for indeterminate 6 lengths. 7 54. Assignment to the B-Max unit is often made based on the charges that the 8 pretrial detainee is facing and allegations that have been charged, but not proven, that the 9 person is a Norteño or Northern Hispanic gang member. 10 55. Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department policy defines the category of 11 detainees subject to “Administrative Segregation” as “Inmates who are determined to be 12 prone to escape, assault staff, assault other inmates, violate facility rules or criminal laws, 13 and/or disrupt the operations of the facility. Administrative segregation shall consist of 14 separate and secure housing, but shall not involve any other deprivations of privileges 15 other than is necessary to obtain the objective of protecting other inmates and staff or as a 16 consequence of the inmate’s behavior.” 17 56. The Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department keeps its classification records 18 secret to the defendant and defendant’s counsel, but makes those records available to the 19 prosecution. Such action makes it impossible for any detainee to intelligently answer or 20 oppose his classification, if and when he is granted a classification review. 21 57. The Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department Policy maintains a list of 22 “Hazard Codes.” In those codes, codes are assigned to Norteño, Sureño, and Northern 23 Rider groups, each of which is typically associated with persons of Hispanic descent, but 24 assigns no codes to groups typically associated with other races, such as the Aryan 25 Brotherhood, Skinheads, Jugaloos, Crips, Bloods, etc. 26 58. Pretrial detainees who are assigned to B-Max are often kept in B-Max for 27 disciplinary reasons are often held there for indeterminate lengths after their disciplinary 28 periods are served. Lunsford Legal Group 10 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 59. Stanislaus County’s harsh regime of segregation in B-Max is inhumane and 2 debilitating. Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, are isolated in a cramped concrete 3 cell for 38 to 80 continuous hours at a time with one cellmate. 4 approximately 6.5 x 12.’ Plaintiffs are afforded a bunk bed, a combination toilet-sink unit, 5 a desk, a stool, and a fluorescent light in the ceiling. 6 60. The cells are Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, are permitted only very limited 7 access to telephone calls to counsel or family (phones are available during yard periods 8 only,) contact visits with counsel. 9 10 11 61. Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, are denied adequate recreational time or “yard privileges,” rehabilitative, vocational, recreational, or educational programming. 62. Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, receive, at most, three hours 12 yard/recreation time per week. Scheduled yard times for the bottom tier, or first floor, 13 are Mondays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, for one hour apiece. The top tier, or second 14 floor, is afforded yard on Tuesdays, Fridays, and Sundays. Wednesdays are designated 15 “down days” for cleaning of the unit. Morning and evening yard are alternated. 16 63. The “recreational yard” that Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, housed 17 in B-Max are afforded is an enclosed concrete cell. There is a window approximately 18 twenty feet up in the cell that is covered with a screen or wired mesh that does not allow 19 for unobstructed sunlight and fresh air. The “yard,” as constituted, does not afford 20 pretrial detainees with an outdoor environment. 21 64. Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, are permitted only three showers per 22 week and three hours’ “yard time” per week, which is access to an empty concrete cell 23 with only a television and telephone. There is no access to the outside, no exercise 24 equipment, no recreational equipment, and no seating. 25 65. Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, and housed in B-Max are only 26 exposed to the outside during their walks to and from transportation taking them to the 27 courthouse. 28 66. The amount of time Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, are confined to Lunsford Legal Group 11 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 their cells depends on the yard schedule. A detainee can be confined to his cell for 2 periods of 38 hours, 56 hours, twice a month a detainee is confined to his cell for 60 hours, 3 and twice a month he is confined for 80 hours at a time. 4 67. Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, may only access telephones to call 5 their attorneys, investigators, friends, or family during yard times. The yard schedule 6 and telephone restrictions limit pretrial detainees in B-Max to only four telephone calls 7 during normal business hours per month, thereby interfering with their ability to 8 participate in their own defense and denying them the effective assistance of counsel. 9 68. Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, are unable to challenge or request 10 meaningful review of the restrictive conditions that exist in B-Max. Defendant Clifton 11 has informed pretrial detainees that housing is not a grievable matter. 12 69. Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated are unable to challenge or request 13 meaningful review of the restrictive conditions that exist in B-Max. Defendant Sergeant 14 Verver has informed each pretrial detainee that “current policy and procedure are being 15 administered correctly in regards to the classification and housing of inmates in 16 Stanislaus County. You were and are housed with respect to your charges.” 17 70. Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, are unable to request meaningful 18 review of the lengthy and inhumane amount of time in which they are confined to their 19 cells, a condition imposed as a result of being housed in B-Max, as Defendant Clifton’s 20 response is to inform the person “this is not a restrictive program.” 21 71. Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, are restrained with the use of waist 22 chains, shackles, and lock boxes that secure their hands tightly to their waist during 23 attorney visits, personal visits, and court. 24 72. The lockboxes force the metal into the flesh of the men’s wrists and arms, 25 creating more markings, scabbing, scars, and numbness. Plaintiffs, and others similarly 26 situated, experience pain and cramping as well as periods of numbness after the 27 lockboxes are removed. 28 73. During personal visits, which require Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, Lunsford Legal Group 12 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 to use a telephone to speak to their visitor, the lockboxes have their hands secured at their 2 waist, or just above, making use of the telephones painful and impracticable. 3 74. Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, who are classified as active Norteño 4 or Northern Hispanic are denied access to rehabilitative programs, such as Alcoholics or 5 Narcotics Anonymous, anger management classes, or parenting classes. They are denied 6 access to educational programs such as G.E.D. programs, and are denied access to 7 vocational programs. If they are convicted, they are denied access to the Alternative 8 Work Program, ankle monitoring, or any other form of alternative sentencing. These 9 programs are available to all other detainees and inmates. 10 75. Defendants, by and through their policies and practices, personally and 11 through their agents, have suggested that if Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were 12 unhappy with their housing, they could always debrief. 13 76. Defendants persistently, and with deliberate indifference, deny these men not 14 only the normal conditions necessary for a person’s mental and physical well-being, but 15 also any meaningful way to address the conditions of their confinement. 16 tormenting and prolonged conditions of confinement have produced harmful and 17 predictable psychological and physical deterioration among Plaintiffs and class members. 18 77. These Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, are denied the ability to make citizen’s 19 complaints regarding officer misconduct or the disproportionately harsh treatment they 20 are afforded, rather they are informed that they are “not a citizen, you are an inmate.” 21 B. 22 Facts Relating to the “Active Tanks” at the Stanislaus County Men’s Jail 78. Plaintiffs Armando Osegueda, Robert Palomino, David Lomeli, and Jairo 23 Hernandez each sue on his own behalf and as a representative of those similarly situated 24 who have been housed in the Stanislaus County Men’s Jail (“Men’s Jail”) in “active 25 Norteño tanks (“Active Tanks”) or classified as active Norteño or Active Northern 26 Hispanics without meaningful review of his placement. 27 28 79. Upon booking, detainees are asked whether they are “active” or “a drop- out.” Alternatively, they are asked if they can be housed with anybody or whether they Lunsford Legal Group 13 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 2 need protection. They are not given an option to say they are neither. 80. Upon booking, those pretrial detainees who are classified as active Norteño 3 are issued a green and white jumpsuit, which, according to Stanislaus County Sheriff’s 4 Department policy, denotes “Administrative Segregation and Norteño.” They are then 5 put into “Active Tanks.” 6 81. Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department policy defines the category of 7 detainees subject to “Administrative Segregation” as “Inmates who are determined to be 8 prone to escape, assault staff, assault other inmates, violate facility rules or criminal laws, 9 and/or disrupt the operations of the facility. Administrative segregation shall consist of 10 separate and secure housing, but shall not involve any other deprivations of privileges 11 other than is necessary to obtain the objective of protecting other inmates and staff or as a 12 consequence of the inmate’s behavior.” 13 82. The Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department Policy maintains a list of 14 “Hazard Codes.” In those codes, codes are assigned to Norteño, Sureño, and Northern 15 Rider groups, each of which is typically associated with persons of Hispanic descent, but 16 assigns no codes to groups typically associated with other races, such as the Aryan 17 Brotherhood, Skinheads, Jugaloos, Crips, Bloods, Piru, etc. 18 83. The Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department keeps its classification records 19 secret to the defendant and defendant’s counsel, but makes those records available to the 20 prosecution. Such action makes it impossible for any detainee to intelligently answer or 21 oppose his classification. 22 84. Each “active tank” at the men’s jail houses 12 men. 23 85. The active tank measures 25’ by 20’. There is a total of 12 beds, comprised of 24 6 bunk beds in each tank. The tank is equipped with two toilets and sinks (1 combination 25 toilet/sink unit and one stand alone toiled and sink.) 26 27 28 86. The tanks are divided by a gate that runs through the middle of it, dividing the sleeping area from the day area by floor to ceiling bars. 87. Each tank is equipped with two large picnic-style tables and one telephone. Lunsford Legal Group 14 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 2 3 4 5 88. Some active tanks are unsanitary and in disrepair. Water leaks through the ceiling on the second floor (of a three floor facility. The upper walls contain black mold. 89. Upper respiratory infections and other illnesses are common in the Active Tanks. 90. The tanks at the Men’s Jail house both pretrial detainees and persons who are 6 serving sentences for misdemeanors and/or serving “local prison” time pursuant to AB 7 109. Often, pretrial detainees and convicted inmates are housed in the same tank. 8 91. Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, housed in the active tanks at the 9 men’s jail are offered yard privileges outside constrained in a series of cages, without 10 recreational equipment, for three hours a week. Those three hours are comprised of two 11 one and a half hour increments. There is no regular yard schedule. If a detainee is in 12 court, has a legal visit, or is in a personal visit when yard time is called, they are not 13 afforded yard at an alternate time so they must wait until the next week to be afforded 14 yard privileges. 15 92. Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, who are housed in active tanks at the 16 Men’s Jail are restrained with the use of waist chains, shackles, and lock boxes that secure 17 their hands tightly to their waist during attorney visits, personal visits, and court. 18 93. The lockboxes used at the Men’s Jail have been changed to a box that is .25 19 inches larger than the lockboxes used at PSC. The larger size forces the metal into the 20 flesh of the men’s wrists and arms, creating more markings, scabbing, scars, and 21 numbness. 22 numbness after the lockboxes are removed. 23 94. Pretrial detainees experience pain and cramping as well as periods of During personal visits, which require Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, 24 to use a telephone to speak to their visitor, the lockboxes have their hands secured at their 25 waist, or just above, making use of the telephones painful and impracticable. 26 95. Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, who are classified as active Norteño 27 or Northern Hispanic are denied access to rehabilitative programs, such as Alcoholics or 28 Narcotics Anonymous, anger management classes, or parenting classes. They are denied Lunsford Legal Group 15 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 access to educational programs such as G.E.D. programs, and are denied access to 2 vocational programs. If they are convicted, they are denied access to the Alternative 3 Work Program, ankle monitoring, or any other form of alternative sentencing. These 4 programs are available to all other detainees and inmates. 5 C. 6 Facts Relating to Excessive Force 96. Plaintiffs and those similarly situated, are subjected to excessive force during 7 “raids” and routine searches of their cells. Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, have 8 been subjected to the use of pellets, block guns, and tasers. 9 10 11 97. Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, have not been issued any written instruction or policy on expected behavior during raids or cell searches. 98. When correctional officers and members of the CERT team determine there is 12 a need to search inside an active tank, they approach the cell and start shooting into the 13 cell with the use of shotguns (pellets or pepper balls) or block guns. Detainees are 14 contemporaneously ordered to get down or they will be shot in the head. The force is 15 used in the absence of any danger to the correctional officers as the doors are closed and 16 locked. 17 99. Correctional officers and members of the CERT team deploy “flash bang” 18 grenades on the tier, just outside the open bars of the cells prior to searches, despite the 19 lack of any present danger to the officers who are standing outside the locked tanks. 20 100. In or about October 2012, Armando Osegueda was housed in the Active 21 Tanks of the Men’s Jail. Officers came to his cell, stood outside the closed bars, and shot 22 pepper balls into the enclosed cell, spraying powder everywhere. There was, at the time, 23 no ongoing incident and no threat toward any officer. While officers were shooting, they 24 were shouting “Get the fuck down or I will shoot you in the fucking head.” If anyone 25 moves or ducks, they will be shot. Once all twelve men were down, officers entered the 26 cell and placed them in handcuffs. 27 interview room where everyone was strip searched, their persons were searched, and the 28 cell was thoroughly searched. All twelve detainees were escorted to a small When the men were returned to the cell there was Lunsford Legal Group 16 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 2 “powder everywhere.” 101. In or about October 2012, a raid took place in B-Max at the same time as the 3 raid in the Men’s jail. All sections were hit simultaneously. Detainees were ordered to 4 the ground in their cells before doors were opened. Detainee Angel Devilar moved and 5 was tased by an officer, through the tray slot, before the door to his cell was opened. 6 Detainees were then pulled out of their cells, were strip searched, and placed on their 7 knees in the B-Max dayroom for hours. Detainee Felix Lopez was complaining of severe 8 leg pain and wanted to get up. Officers threatened to slam him down. Officers informed 9 the detainees that if they moved or even shifted, they would be shot or tased. 10 102. On or about June 2014, Mr. Osegueda and Mr. Palomino returned from court 11 and entered B-Max. Detainees were already placed in the yard, on their knees, with guns 12 pointed at them. Mr. Osegueda and Mr. Palomino were stripped out and then placed in 13 the yard, on their knees, with guns pointed at them, where they and other detainees 14 remained for another 1 to 2 hours. 15 103. On or about November 2014, the CERT team entered B-Max just after dinner. 16 Detainees who were confined in the small, cramped cells, described above, and behind 17 solid doors with only a safety glass window and tray slot were ordered to their knees. 18 They were told to “cuff up” through the tray slot, but also told that if they shifted or 19 raised up they would be shot. While detainees from each cell were searched, one officer 20 pointed a gun at them while the other held his taser toward them. Mr. Palomino and his 21 cellmate, Anthony Gonzales were taken out of the unit to a holding cell. Detainees, 22 including Mr. Osegueda, were moved to the multipurpose room or shower areas to be 23 strip searched. Detainee Andrew Melendez was pushed against the shower wall. He and 24 his cellmate, Carlos Soriano were “roughed up.” Detainees were then moved to the 25 dayroom and placed on their knees, where they remained for another 2-3 hours. 26 104. On or about December 2015, Plaintiffs David Lomeli and Jairo Hernandez 27 were housed in the Active Tanks” of the Men’s Jail. At approximately 6:00 or 7:00 p.m., 28 Mr. Lomelli was in the dayroom side of the 12 man cell, watching T.V. CERT members Lunsford Legal Group 17 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 began shooting pepper balls or some sort of rounds as soon as the door to the tier opened, 2 before they arrived at any particular cell. CERT members approached Mr. Lomeli and 3 Mr. Hernandez’s cell. A flash-bang grenade was deployed. Mr. Hernandez, who was 4 standing near the bars, was hit with shrapnel. CERT members yelled “Get the fuck down 5 or we will shoot you in the head,” while continuing to shoot rounds into the cell while 6 the bars wee closed and locked. Mr. Lomeli remembers backing up to get out of the way 7 of the rounds that were already coming into the cell. Mr. Lomeli was struck by rounds in 8 the neck, just below the left ear, and leg when he tried to duck behind the table. No 9 ongoing incident was occurring and there was no known threat to officers. It was merely 10 a routine search for extra clothing and contraband. No contraband was located to Mr. 11 Hernandez’s or Mr. Lomeli’s knowledge. 12 105. In or about July 2013, pretrial detainees, including Mr. Osegueda and Mr. 13 Palomino, were removed from their cells for a routine search and placed in the concrete 14 “yard” in no clothing other than their boxers and forced to remain on their knees with 15 block guns pointed at them for hours, without being permitted to move, shift, access 16 restrooms, or water while routine searches were made of all cells in B-Max. 17 106. On or about January 29, 2017, at approximately 6:00 a.m., David Lomeli was 18 sleeping in his cell in the Active Tanks. It was still dark outside. Members of the CERT 19 team approached the cell and started shooting into the enclosed cell from outside the 20 bars. Those present inside the cells were ordered to the ground and placed in mechanical 21 restraints. A routine search was conducted in the cell. No incident was occurring, 22 everyone was asleep inside the cell. 23 contraband was found. 24 IV. To Mr. Lomeli’s knowledge, no weapons or CAUSES OF ACTION 25 First Cause of Action: Fourteenth Amendment 26 (Unconstitutional conditions of confinement) 27 28 Lunsford Legal Group 107. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference allegations contained in paragraphs 29-77, as if set forth fully herein. 18 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 2 108. Plaintiffs advance this claim on their own behalf, and on behalf of the Fourteenth Amendment subclass, against all defendants. 3 109. By their policies and practices described herein, defendants have deprived 4 and continue to deprive plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, of the minimal civilized 5 measure of life’s necessities, and have violated their basic human dignity and their right 6 to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Fifth and Fourteenth 7 Amendments to the United States Constitution for each of the reasons set forth below. 8 110. Inasmuch as the conditions in B-Max are not reasonably related to any 9 ascertainable penological interest, the denial of access to telephones, which are readily 10 available to all other groups and even in the Active Tanks of the Men’s Jail, to call 11 attorneys or families violates Plaintiffs’ rights to equal protection of the laws. 12 111. Defendants’ policies evidence purposeful discrimination as only Latino gangs 13 are listed amongst the hazard codes, which are used for the purposes of determining who 14 is to be segregated, while all other alleged gangs typically associated with other 15 ethnicities are notably absent. These other groups do have a presence in Stanislaus 16 County. 17 A. 18 Deprivation of Basic Human Need 112. First, the cumulative effect of extremely prolonged confinement, along with 19 denial of the opportunity to downgraded, the denial of the opportunity to be housed with 20 other pretrial detainees, the deprivation of educational, rehabilitative, or vocational 21 programs, and other crushing conditions of confinement in the Stanislaus County B-Max 22 Unit, constitute a serious deprivation of at least one basic human need, including but not 23 limited to environmental and sensory stimulation, mental and physical health, physical 24 exercise, sleep, and meaningful activity. 25 B. 26 Imposition of Serious Psychological and Physical Injury, Pain, and Suffering 113. Second, extremely prolonged exposure to these deprivations of basic human 27 needs is currently imposing serious psychological pain and suffering and permanent 28 psychological and physical injury on Plaintiffs and the class they represent. Lunsford Legal Group 19 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 114. In addition to Plaintiffs’ current psychological and physical pain, the 2 likelihood that Plaintiffs and the class will remain in B-Max or be arbitrarily re-housed 3 there for the foreseeable future subjects plaintiffs and the class they represent to a 4 significant risk of future debilitating and permanent mental illness and physical harm. 5 C. B-Max Confinement Designed to Coerce Plaintiffs to Provide Information or 6 Accept Pleas 7 115. Third, Defendants’ harsh policies are not legitimately related to security or 8 other penological needs of isolating alleged dangerous prisoners from others, but rather 9 are designed to coerce Plaintiffs to debrief and become informants for the State, and/or to 10 accept plea offers made by the District Attorney. This policy is evidenced by Deputy 11 Shelton’s comments that if Plaintiffs and those similarly situated are unhappy with their 12 housing, they should debrief. 13 116. This policy of holding Plaintiffs and class members in prolonged harsh 14 conditions without any meaningful information on how they may downgrade without 15 debriefing or simply accepting a plea so they may be transferred to a state prison is, as 16 one court puts it, “tantamount to indefinite administrative segregation for silence – an 17 intolerable practice in modern society.” It is cruel and unusual punishment for 18 defendants to coerce detainees to provide information on other detainees – if indeed they 19 have any such information – by maintaining them in stifling and punitive conditions that 20 constitute an atypical and significant hardship, comparable to the conditions of 21 “Supermax” prisons, unless they so inform. 22 117. Detainees who debrief incur substantial risk of serious harm and retaliation to 23 themselves and their families. The combination of the crushing conditions in B-Max, the 24 policies designed to coerce detainees to debrief or plea, the lack of any effective means of 25 obtaining release from B-Max without debriefing or pleading, and the substantial risk of 26 harm if one does debrief, puts prisoners in an untenable position and constitutes an 27 unconstitutional threat to the safety of detainees confined in B-Max in violation of the 28 Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Lunsford Legal Group 20 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 118. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that pretrial detainees who accept plea 2 bargains offered by the District Attorney’s Office, even though they are now convicted, 3 are downgraded from maximum security and placed in less restrictive housing while 4 they await transport from the county to California Department of Corrections. 5 D. 6 Disproportionate Punishment 119. Fourth, Defendants’ policy of indefinite and prolonged placement in B-Max 7 imposes disproportionate punishment on plaintiffs and class members. Plaintiffs and 8 class members have not been convicted of the offenses they are charged with. The 9 majority of persons housed in the B-Max Unit are not there for conduct, but rather are 10 housed there simply because they are classified as Northern Hispanics, active gang 11 members, or some other unknown reason. Placement is entirely capricious and arbitrary. 12 Furthermore, as hazard codes are part of the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Office written 13 policy, and those codes only include gangs typically associated with persons of Hispanic 14 descent, placement is disproportionately burdening Hispanic detainees. 15 120. Defendants have no legitimate penological interest in retaining detainees 16 indefinitely in debilitating conditions such as those found in B-Max, simply because they 17 are gang members or associates, without recent, serious disciplinary or gang-related 18 infractions. Nor is this policy rationally related to legitimate security needs. Defendants’ 19 history of inflicting significant psychological and physical harm and the risk of future 20 debilitating harm on these pre-trial detainees simply for allegedly being gang members 21 or associates offends civilized society’s sense of decency, constitutes an intolerable 22 practice in modern society, and is a disproportionate punishment which violates the fifth 23 and Fourteenth Amendments. 24 E. Deprivation of Human Dignity in Violation of Contemporary Standards of 25 Human Decency 26 121. Finally, Defendants’ continuation of Plaintiffs’ confinement for years under 27 the debilitating and extreme conditions existing at the Safety Center B-Max Unit strips 28 human beings of their basic dignity and humanity in violation of contemporary Lunsford Legal Group 21 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 standards of human decency and constitutes cruel and unusual treatment prohibited by 2 the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 3 122. That Stanislaus County’s policies and practices violate contemporary 4 standards of human dignity and decency is evidenced by the fact that those practices are 5 unusual in comparison to the practices and policies of other counties within the State of 6 California with respect to segregated detainee housing. Virtually no other county or state 7 uses mere alleged gang association or membership to confine prisoners in SHU facilities. 8 Other states do not house/warehouse hundreds of detainees and prisoners in the SHU 9 for years at a time. 10 F. 11 Defendants’ Deliberate Indifference to the Deprivations Suffered by Plaintiffs 123. The policies and practices complained of herein have been and continue to be 12 implemented by defendants and their agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting 13 in concert with them under color of state law, in their official capacity. 14 15 16 124. Defendants have been and are aware of all the deprivations complained of herein, and have condoned or been deliberately indifferent to such conduct 125. It should be obvious to defendants and to any reasonable person that the 17 conditions imposed on plaintiffs and class members for many years to come cause 18 tremendous mental anguish, suffering, and pain to such detainees. Moreover, defendants 19 have repeatedly been made aware, through administrative grievances, written 20 complaints, and verbal complaints that class members are currently experiencing 21 significant and lasting injury. 22 plaintiffs’ pain and suffering. 23 24 25 126. Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to the Indeed, defendants have deliberately and knowingly caused such pain in an effort to force plaintiffs and the class to either debrief or plead to criminal charges. 127. Defendants have arbitrarily and capriciously deprived Plaintiff and class 26 members of due process of law in assigning who will be housed in PSC B-Max Unit or 27 Active Norteño tanks without a chance to be heard or notice of what criteria will subject a 28 person to housing in the B-Max Unit or active tanks, subject to the various deprivations Lunsford Legal Group 22 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 therein. Second Cause of Action : Fourteenth Amendment 2 (Due Process) 3 4 5 128. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained paragraphs 29-77 (B-Max) and 78-95 (Active Tanks) as if set forth fully herein. 6 129. 7 all defendants. 8 130. Plaintiff advances this claim on his behalf, and on behalf of the class, against Defendants have deprived Plaintiff and class members of a liberty interest 9 without due process of law by denying them meaningful and timely periodic review of 10 their continued and long-term detention at PSC B-Max Unit and meaningful notice of 11 what they must do to earn release, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the 12 United States Constitution. 13 131. Defendants have arbitrarily and capriciously deprived Plaintiff and class 14 members of due process of law in assigning who will be housed in PSC B-Max Unit or 15 Active Norteño tanks without a chance to be heard or notice of what criteria will subject a 16 person to housing in the B-Max Unit or active tanks, subject to the various deprivations 17 therein. 18 132. The condition and duration of defendants’ confinement of Plaintiff and those 19 similarly situated at the PSC B-Max Unit constitute an atypical and significant hardship 20 as compared with the ordinary incidents of prison life for three basic reasons: (a) the 21 exceedingly harsh and isolated conditions in the B-Max unit; (b) the lengthy duration of 22 confinement in the B-Max Unit; and (c) the arbitrary and capricious assignment to the B- 23 Max Unit. 24 A. 25 Conditions in the Public Safety Center B-Max Unit 133. The conditions in the B-Max Unit are unduly harsh, and do not generally 26 mirror those conditions imposed upon pre-trial detainees in any other unit of the Public 27 Safety Center or any Stanislaus County jail. These harsh conditions include, but are not 28 limited to: isolation in cells that are sealed off from contact with any other prisoner other Lunsford Legal Group 23 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 than a single cellmate, a prohibition on either personal or legal telephone calls other than 2 during the one hour allotted time in yard, very limited visiting hours for either social or 3 legal visits, no educational or general programming, a yard facility that provide no view 4 of the outside and very little natural sunlight, no recreational equipment, and limited 5 access to showers and personal hygiene. 6 B. 7 Duration of Confinement in the Public Safety Center’s B-Max Unit 134. Plaintiff and class members have been held in the conditions described above 8 for a period of three years to more than ten years while awaiting trial. Upon information 9 and belief, this shockingly lengthy confinement is atypical in comparison to the ordinary 10 disciplinary and administrative segregation imposed in Stanislaus County. 11 C. 12 Lack of Meaningful Process 135. Because indefinite placement in the Public Safety Center’s B-Max Unit 13 constitutes a significant and atypical hardship, plaintiffs and class members are entitled 14 to meaningful notice of how they may rejoin general population, as well as meaningful 15 and timely periodic reviews to determine whether they still warrant detention in the B- 16 Max unit. 17 136. Defendants have denied and continue to deny any such notice or meaningful 18 review by: (failing to provide pre-trial detainees with notice of what they can do to be 19 released from the B-Max Unit apart from providing information they do not have or 20 risking their life and safety and that of their family by debriefing; (2) providing 21 misleading notice that they can become eligible to be released from the B-max Unit by 22 becoming an “inactive” gang member or associate and refraining from engaging in any 23 gang activities, when in fact pre-trial detainees who are not involved in any current gang 24 activity are still routinely retained in the B-Max Unit; making a predetermination that 25 certain pretrial detainees will stay in the B-Max Unit until they are either released from 26 custody or are transferred to prison, thus rendering periodic reviews substantively and 27 procedurally meaningless; and (4) making the length of time between reviews far too 28 long to comport with the constitutional due-process standard. Lunsford Legal Group 24 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 137. Defendants are also violating Plaintiff and class members’ due process rights 2 by retaining the Plaintiff and class members in conditions that amount to an atypical and 3 significant hardship without legitimate penological interest. Stanislaus County Sheriff’s 4 Department does allow for the segregation of detainees who “are prone to engaging 5 criminal gang activity.” However, this detention occurs without reliable evidence that 6 Plaintiff and members of the class are prone to engage in criminal gang activity. 7 Third Cause of Action : Fourteenth Amendment 8 (Equal Protection and Purposeful Discrimination) 9 10 11 138. Plaintiffs incorporate allegations contained in paragraphs 29 through 95 as if fully set forth herein. 139. Plaintiffs and others similarly situated are denied access to rehabilitative 12 programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, Anger Management, or 13 Parenting classes on the basis of ethnicity. The policies of the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s 14 Office designate only those alleged street gangs that are typically associated with persons 15 of Hispanic descent, while not including groups that are typically associated with other 16 races, including, inter alia. Aryan Brotherhood, Skinheads, Nazi Lowriders, Jugaloos, 17 Crips, or Bloods. 18 so-called threat groups typically associated with other races, are afforded in other units of 19 the Stanislaus County Men’s Jail and Stanislaus County Public Safety Center. Plaintiffs 20 are informed and believe that these programs are funded through the inmate welfare 21 fund to which they are forced to contribute whenever money is deposited on their books 22 or they order anything from commissary. 23 140. All other pretrial detainees, including those allegedly affiliated with Alleged members of other “threat groups” including, inter alia, Skinheads, 24 Bloods, and Crips are housed in general population and afforded all privileges including 25 freedom of movement, more time out of their cells, outdoor yard, educational, 26 rehabilitative, and vocational programs. 27 28 141. Plaintiffs and others similarly situated are denied access to educational programs such as G.E.D. classes. These programs are afforded in other units of the Lunsford Legal Group 25 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 Stanislaus County Men’s Jail and Stanislaus County Public Safety Center. Plaintiffs are 2 informed and believe that these programs are funded through the inmate welfare fund. 3 142. Plaintiffs and others similarly situated are denied access to vocational 4 training programs These programs are afforded in other units of the Stanislaus County 5 Men’s Jail and Stanislaus County Public Safety Center. 6 believe that these programs are funded through the inmate welfare fund. 7 Seventh Cause of Action 8 (Excessive Force) 9 10 11 143. Plaintiffs are informed and Plaintiffs incorporate by reference allegations contained in paragraphs 96-106, as if set forth fully herein. 144. Plaintiffs and those similarly situated, are subjected to excessive force during 12 “raids” and routine searches of their cells. Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, have 13 been subjected to the use of pellets, block guns, and tasers. 14 15 16 145. Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, have not been issued any written instruction or policy on expected behavior during raids or cell searches. 146. When correctional officers and members of the CERT team determine there is 17 a need to search inside an active tank, they approach the cell and start shooting into the 18 cell with the use of shotguns (pellets or pepper balls) or block guns. Detainees are 19 contemporaneously ordered to get down or they will be shot in the head. The force is 20 used in the absence of any danger to the correctional officers as the doors are closed and 21 locked. 22 147. Correctional officers and members of the CERT team deploy “flash bang” 23 grenades in closed, locked active tanks prior to searches, despite the lack of any present 24 danger to the officers who are standing outside the locked tanks. 25 148. Members of the CERT team and other officers taking part in the 26 raids/searches of Plaintiffs’ cells begin deploying flash bang grenades and firing 27 shotguns often before they even reach Plaintiffs’ cells. The cells are closed and locked. 28 Officers and members of the CERT team are separated from Plaintiffs by locked bars. No Lunsford Legal Group 26 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 ongoing emergencies or incidents are going on at the time of the raids. It is objectively 2 unreasonable that officers use flash-bang grenades and shotguns in the face of no present 3 threat. Defendants actions are simply not logically related to any penological or safety 4 interest since no emergency is occurring when these raids are instituted and no threats to 5 safety are present to trigger such an abusive use of force. 6 149. It is objectively unreasonable to force a human being to remain on their knees 7 for hours at a time, while threatening those people with the use of firearms and tasers if 8 they should shift or move. 9 10 V. 150. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiffs and the class they represent have no adequate remedy at law to 11 redress the wrongs suffered as set forth in this Complaint. Plaintiff has suffered and will 12 continue to suffer irreparable injury as a result of the unlawful acts, omissions, policies, 13 and practices of the defendants, as alleged herein, unless Plaintiff and the class members 14 he represents are granted the relief requested. The need for relief is critical because the 15 rights at issue are paramount under the United States Constitution. 16 17 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, request that this court grant them 18 the following relief: 19 a. Actual monetary damages to address the physical and psychological harms 20 they have suffered as a result of the harsh conditions in B-Max and the 21 active tanks; 22 b. Punitive Damages as the court or jury may deem appropriate; 23 c. Declare that defendants’ policies and practices of confining pre-trial 24 detainees in the Stanislaus County B-Max Unit and/or active tanks violates 25 the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States 26 Constitution; 27 28 Lunsford Legal Group d. Issue injunctive relief ordering defendants to present a written plan to the Court within 30 days of the issuance of the Court’s order providing for: 27 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 2 3 4 i. The release from the B-Max Unit of those pre-trial detainees who have been housed therein without penological interest; ii. The release from active tanks of those pre-trial detainees who have been housed therein without penological interest; 5 iii. Alleviation of the conditions of confinement of pre-trial detainees so 6 that pre-trial detainees are no longer housed under conditions of 7 isolation, sensory deprivation, lack of social and physical human 8 contact, and environmental deprivation; 9 iv. Meaningful review of the continued need for confinement in the B- 10 Max Unit or active tanks within three months of the Court’s order; 11 v. Meaningful review of classification procedures adopted by the 12 Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Office; 13 vi. Meaningful review of B-Max and active tank confinement for pre- 14 trial detainees housed in the B-Max Unit or active tanks in the future; 15 e. Award Plaintiff the costs of this suit and reasonable attorneys’ fees and 16 litigation expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988, and other applicable law; 17 f. Retain jurisdiction of this case until defendants have fully complied with 18 19 orders of this court; and g. Award such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 20 21 Respectively submitted by: 22 Dated: February 5, 2017 23 24 25 26 27 Lunsford Legal Group, PC /s/ Amber Lunsford The Lunsford Law Firm /s/ Loren Lunsford Attorneys for Plaintiffs 28 Lunsford Legal Group 28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT