Judge’s Ruling Ends 13-Year-Old Suit on Jail Overcrowding

In a decision that effectively ends a 13-year-old lawsuit over jail overcrowding in Orange County, a federal judge in Los Angeles has refused to allow the American Civil Liberties Union to expand its claims in the litigation.

“This case is 13 years old and all of the original plaintiffs are long gone,” U.S. District Judge William P. Gray said in an opinion filed June 30 and released Tuesday. “I believe that the time has come to terminate this action, except (for modifications or enforcement of existing orders).”

Gray said it was his “strong impression that the sheriff and his staff, as well as the Board of Supervisors, have a vital interest in the never-ending and very difficult task of improving conditions in their detention facilities. They must be given the opportunity to carry out their functions without the unnecessary judicial interference that the (ACLU) requests.”

Factor in Major Decisions

The class-action lawsuit--known as Stewart vs. Gates--has been a factor in some major decisions in Orange County over the last several years, including decisions to build several new jail facilities and decisions on where they would be located. It also spawned a number of court orders on the treatment of prisoners and the jail’s capacity that Gray said will remain in effect.

In 1985, Gray held Sheriff Brad Gates and the Board of Supervisors in contempt of court for not responding to his orders that conditions at County Jail be improved.

Within county government, most officials--including the supervisors and the sheriff--were unaware of the decision late Tuesday. A spokesman for Gates said he would probably respond today.

County Administrative Officer Larry Parrish, however, called the decision “good news.” He said the end of the suit will not affect the county’s decisions on building future jails but added, “it’s always nice not to have another level of authority involved in local operations.”

Parrish also said the suit “has been the catalyst for virtually everything that’s been decided (about future jail plans). Painful as it was from time to time, it has had a positive effect on things overall.”

Supervisor Thomas F. Riley said he interpreted the decision as “saying that you’ve done what we’ve asked you to do so therefore my supervision is no longer needed.”

Riley also said he does not believe that the judge’s decision would affect the county’s plans for future jails. “I think all of us realize the need to push forward on the jail space. If the pressure doesn’t keep up, it’s human nature to delay those things.”

The lawsuit was filed in 1975 on behalf of inmates in the county’s main men’s jail in Santa Ana. Over the years, the county has successfully argued that the judge’s orders should be limited to the main jail and not apply to branch facilities.

It was unclear Tuesday just how far the judge’s decision will go in ending the complaints about Orange County’s jails. The ACLU said that it still believes that a there are problems in the jails and that it will continue to seek judicial remedies.

Last month, the ACLU sought to expand the Stewart case to all Orange County jail facilities. But in his June 30 decision, Gray said, “It would be beyond the appropriate responsibility of a United States district judge for me to undertake such general supervision.”

Gray said if the ACLU wants to pursue its complaint, it is “entitled to file a . . . new action that would focus upon those issues.”

ACLU attorney Rebecca Jurado characterized the judge’s decision as a difference over procedure. She said the issue was whether the complaints about other facilities would be filed as part of the existing suit or as a new one.

ACLU Still Concerned

“At no time did he say there was nothing wrong with the system,” Jurado said. “We are still concerned about the issues in the Stewart litigation (and) separate actions are always available.”

Jurado said she had heard of the judge’s decision but had not yet seen his report. She said a decision about the ACLU’s next step would be made later.

She specifically said there are problems in the women’s jail that will be pursued regarding prisoners wearing handcuffs while exercising and inadequate visitation rights.

County Counsel Adrian Kuyper sent a memo to the supervisors late Tuesday saying the judge’s order “effectively closed the case.”

Kuyper cautioned, however, that the judge left open the possibility that the ACLU might return to the court if there are any violations of the judge’s orders on jail capacity or treatment of prisoners.

The judge’s orders place a population cap of 1,296 prisoners on the third and fourth floors of the main men’s jail. And he set standards for the amount of sleep prisoners should be provided, their meal schedules, their access to books and law reference materials, visiting privileges and rights to a bed.

Before 1985, overcrowding in the jail was so serious that prisoners were regularly sleeping on the floor. Gray ordered the practice stopped years earlier and finally held Gates and the supervisors in contempt of court in March, 1985. They were fined $50,000, which later was used to hire a special master to monitor compliance with court orders in the case.

Last year, the Board of Supervisors voted to build a 6,000-bed jail in Gypsum Canyon near Anaheim. It has also recently expanded its minimum-security facility near El Toro and voted to expand a jail in Orange. Earlier this year, the sheriff also opened a new 400-bed jail in Santa Ana.

Shortly after the contempt charge, the board also voted to build another new jail near Anaheim Stadium so there would be “quick” relief of the overcrowding in the main jail.

That jail is still scheduled to be built, but the decision was returned to the supervisors after a Superior Court judge recently ordered the county to redo its environmental impact report on the project. The judge’s order came in a lawsuit brought by the city of Anaheim.

Times staff writer John Spano contributed to this story from Los Angeles.

HISTORY OF JAIL-OVERCROWDING CONTROVERSY Here is a chronology of important events in the legal controversy concerning overcrowding at Orange County Jail.

Nov. 10, 1968--Construction completed at main men’s jail in downtown Santa Ana.

Sept. 11, 1975--American Civil Liberties Union files class-action lawsuit over jail conditions in Orange County.

May 4, 1978--U.S. District Judge William P. Gray orders Orange County to improve conditions in the jail.

March 18, 1985--Gray finds Sheriff Brad Gates and the five county supervisors in contempt for not heeding his 1978 order and fines them.

September, 1985--Gates begins releasing low-risk defendants with citations, rather than booking them into jail, because of crowded conditions.

Nov. 13, 1985--Construction begins on the Intake and Release Center next to the main jail to house 382 to 700 inmates; it is to open in the fall of 1987.

March 18, 1986--Supervisors choose county-owned property at Katella Avenue and Douglass Road in Anaheim, near Anaheim Stadium, as the site for a 1,500-inmate jail.

October, 1986--Gates expands the cite-and-release program from newly arrested defendants to people arrested on warrants issued because they had failed to appear in court on previous charges.

Nov. 26, 1986--Supervisors approve a feasibility study for a jail in a remote area of the county to hold up to 5,000 inmates; selected as potential sites are Gypsum Canyon/Coal Canyon, Fremont Canyon, Irvine Lake and Chiquita Canyon.

June 22, 1987--A rally, planned by the Citizens Committee for the Logical and Sensible Siting of Jails, draws an estimated crowd of 150 people to Orange for speeches protesting a proposed expansion of the 720-bed Theo Lacy branch jail and construction of a 6,100-inmate, maximum-security jail in Fremont Canyon or at Irvine Lake.

July 15, 1987--Supervisors choose Gypsum Canyon/Coal Canyon site for a jail that will house about 6,000 inmates.

Dec. 7, 1987--In an effort to derail a lawsuit against the county by Orange City Council members, supervisors agree to reduce the inmate capacity of the Theo Lacy branch jail and to disallow maximum-security inmates.

Dec. 15, 1987--Judge Gray praises ongoing efforts by the county to reduce jail overcrowding.

June 6, 1988--Citing substandard medical care, poorly trained staff, limited inmate rights and unprovoked beatings, the ACLU seeks to broaden its suit over Orange County Jail, claiming that such conditions continue to exist at jail facilities countywide. Judge Gray indicates his reluctance to see the suit widened but takes the ACLU’s request under submission.

June 28, 1988--Judge Gray denies ACLU motion seeking to broaden its jail lawsuit, saying “this case is adjudged to be closed, subject to the right of the court to make further orders upon good cause.”