SF County Jail Inmates Lawsuit

Case 4:19-cv-02722-KAW Document 1 Filed 05/20/19 Page 1 of 30
LAW OFFICES OF YOLANDA HUANG

1
YOLANDA HUANG, SBN 104543
2 475 14th Street, Suite 500
Oakland, CA 94612
3 Telephone: (510) 329-2140
Facsimile: (510) 580-9410
4
5 Attorney for Plaintiffs
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9 SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND DIVISION
10
11
JOSE POOT, KISHAWN NORBERT, Case No.:
12 KENYON NORBERT, MARSHALL
HIGGINBOTHAM, ANTOINE DEWHITT, COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
13
CORY BUTLER, MONTRAIL BRACKENS, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
14 DELON BARKER, and JAVONN ALLEN, on CLASS ACTION
behalf of themselves individually and others (1) Cruel and Unusual Denial of Sleep:
15
similarly situated, as a class and Subclass, Violations of 8th and 14th amendments of U.S.
16 Constitution and Article I, Sections 7 and 17 of
Plaintiffs,
the California Constitution, 15 CCR 1065.
17 vs. (2) Cruel and Unusual Disruption of Sleep
18
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY SHERIFF’S Violations of 8th and 14th amendments of U.S.
19 DEPARTMENT, CITY AND COUNTY OF Constitution and Article I, Sections 7 and 17 of
SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO the California Constitution and 15 CCR 1065.
20
SHERIFF VICKI HENNESSEY; CHIEF
21 DEPUTY SHERIFF PAUL MIYAMOTO;
CAPTAIN JASON JACKSON, CAPTAIN JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
22 MCCONNELL and John & Jane DOEs, Nos. 1
- 50.
23
24 Defendants.
25
26
27
28
1
COMPLAINT
Poot et al. v. San Francisco County Sheriff’s Department et al., United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No._______
1 INTRODUCTION
2 1. This is a civil rights class action in which the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and
3 a class of similarly situated individuals, seek relief from Defendants’ violations of Plaintiffs’ rights
4 and privileges secured primarily by the Fifth, Fourteenth, and Eighth Amendments of the United
5 States Constitution.
6 2. At issue are conditions in two San Francisco County Jails: County Jail #4 (“CJ4”) in
7 San Francisco, and County Jail #5 (“CJ5”) in San Bruno (hereinafter referred to collectively as “the
8 Jails”).
9 3. In the Jails, the schedule calls for lights out at 10:30 p.m. Breakfast is served at 3:30
10 a.m. The schedule at the Jails, designed by Defendants, for their benefit, ease and convenience,
11 disregards the basic human needs of prisoners for sleep. The schedule prevents any prisoner from
12 being able to have nighttime sleep durations of more than five hours a night, and for most prisoners,
13 they receive less than five hours a night because of actions by sheriff deputies, and the ever-present
14 lights at CJ5.
15 4. In addition, although the schedule theoretically permits a sleep duration of up to five
16 hours at night, on a regular basis, and with great frequency, sheriff’s deputies routinely disrupt
17 prisoners’ limited sleep duration, often hourly, through their activities and conduct, including
18 repeatedly shining bright lights into prisoners’ eyes, waking prisoners up to force them to move, or
19 show their ID bracelets, talking to prisoners, making announcements over the public address
20 system, and having prisoner activities including medical appointments and medication distribution.
21 Prisoners with medical needs, including diabetics. are woken daily at 2:30 a.m. for the jail to
22 monitor the prisoner’s blood sugar.
23 5. As a result of the schedule and constant disruptions, prisoners at the Jails suffer
24 from chronic deprivation of sleep and disturbance of sleep. This ongoing, nightly sleep deprivation
25 and disturbance has created a cascading negative effect on prisoners’ abilities to function at the
26 cognitive, physical, and psychiatric levels. Cognitive impairment adversely impacts pretrial
27 prisoners’ ability to assist in their legal defense. Sleep deprivation causes more sensitivity to
28 physical pain, and prisoners’ overall health and immune systems are negatively impacted, resulting
2
COMPLAINT
1 in health issues including bacterial and viral infections. Psychiatrically, prisoners find themselves
2 short tempered and irritable; experience difficulty exercising emotional control; are unable to
3 handle frustration, and often lack the necessary behavior controls demanded by the jail system. As
4 a result, prisoners suffer disciplinary and punitive consequences with ensuing additional
5 deprivations including loss of telephone and visiting privileges, loss of the ability to purchase
6 commissary, and placement into solitary confinement or administrative segregation. The added
7 social and sensory isolation of solitary confinement and administrative segregation compounds the
8 cognitive, functional and psychiatric impairments already existing due to sleep disruption and
9 deprivation.
10 6. This civil rights class action lawsuit seeks to end these long-standing
11 unconstitutional practices at the Jails. Plaintiffs, who have been subject to and harmed by
12 Defendants’ constitutionally prohibited practice of regularly depriving prisoners of sleep and
13 disturbing prisoners’ sleep, seek to represent class prisoners housed at County Jail 4 and County Jail
14 5; all of whom are subject to these practices; and the subclass of prisoners in County Jail 4 and 5
15 who have medical conditions such as diabetes who are required to 2:30 in the morning to receive
16 alleged medical care. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Defendants’ ongoing policies and practices
17 violate their constitutional and statutory rights, and further, such injunctive relief, compelling
18 Defendants to (1) cease the harmful, excessive and unconstitutional use of sleep deprivation and
19 sleep disruption; (2) an order compelling Defendants to implement procedures to permit prisoners
20 at least 6.5 hours of night time sleep during court day and 7.5 hours of night time sleep on
21 weekends and non-court days; and (3) an order compelling Defendants to cease activities during
22 nighttime sleep hours which disrupt and wake up prisoners and prevent them from obtaining
23 necessary and needed sleep.
24 JURISDICTION
25 7. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C.
26 § 1343(a)(3) (civil rights). This Court may grant declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
27 8. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. §1331 (claims arising under
28 the United States Constitution) and §1343 (claims brought to address deprivations, under color of
3
COMPLAINT
1 state authority, of rights privileges, and immunities secured by the United States Constitution), and,
2 by pendent jurisdiction, California Constitution, Article 1, Section 7, and the aforementioned
3 statutory and constitutional provisions.
4 9. Plaintiffs further invoke this Court's supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
5 § 1367, over any and all state law claims and causes of action which derive from the same nucleus
6 of operative facts and are part of the same case or controversy that gives rise to the federally based
7 claims and causes of action.
8 10. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 2201, and
9 2202, 29 U.S.C. § 794a, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 12117(a), California Government Code § 11135,
10 and Article I, Sections 7 and 17 of the California Constitution.
11 11. Plaintiffs and members of the class filed numerous grievances and exhausted the
12 administrative remedies with the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office. The San Francisco Sheriff’s
13 Office accepted some grievances and denied the grievances they permitted to be filed, or refused to
14 accept grievances. Defendants have taken no action to correct these problems.
15 12. Plaintiffs individually and as a group filed a government claim with the CITY AND
16 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO regarding their claims and the claims. This claim was filed on
17 March 6, 2019 and rejected on March 19, 2018.
18 VENUE AND INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
19 13. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial
20 part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in this district. The claims alleged herein arose in
21 the Counties of San Francisco and San Mateo, in the State of California. Therefore, venue and
22 assignment, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), lie in the United States District Court for the Northern
23 District of California, San Francisco Division or San Jose Division.
24 14. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each and every Defendant because, upon
25 information and belief, all Defendants were residents of California, were employed in California, or
26 otherwise conducted business in California, and all were acting under color of law during all
27 relevant times.
28
4
COMPLAINT
1 JURY DEMAND
2 15. Plaintiffs respectfully demand a trial by jury of all issues in this matter pursuant to
3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b).
4 PLAINTIFFS
5 16. Plaintiffs JOSE POOT, KENYON NORBERT, and MONTRAIL BRACKENS,
6 are currently pretrial detainees housed at the County Jail #4 located at 850 Bryant Street in the City
7 of San Francisco, and under the custody and control of the San Francisco County Sheriff’s
8 Department.
9 17. Plaintiffs KISHAWN NORBERT, MARSHALL HIGGINBOTHAM, ANTOINE
10 DEWHITT, CORY BUTLER, DELON BARKER, and JAVONN ALLEN are pretrial detainees
11 housed at the County Jail #5 in San Bruno, California, in San Mateo County, and under the
12 authority of the San Francisco County Sheriff’s Office.
13 18. All Plaintiffs have been and remain residents of California.
14 DEFENDANTS
15 19. Defendant SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY is a county in the State of California.
16 20. Defendant SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT (HEREINAFTER
17 “SHERIFF”) is a law enforcement agency within CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
18 and, relevant here, is charged with operating the Jails. The Sheriff has failed and refused to adopt
19 appropriate and necessary policies and procedures regarding the treatment and care of the
20 PLAINTIFFS and class members.
21 21. Defendant VICKI L. HENNESSY is, and at all times relevant to this Complaint was,
22 the elected Sheriff of San Francisco County. As Sheriff of San Francisco County, Defendant
23 HENNESSY holds the command and policy making position with regard to County Jails, including
24 County Jails #4 and #5. Defendant HENNESSY has caused, created, authorized, condoned,
25 ratified, approved or knowingly acquiesced in the unconstitutional and inhumane conditions,
26 actions, policies, customs and practices that prevail at the Jails, as described fully below. There is a
27 direct causal link between the affirmative acts and omissions of Defendant Sheriff HENNESSEY,
28 as the chief supervisory member of the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department and the injuries and
5
COMPLAINT
1 violations of rights set forth fully below. Defendant HENNESSY has, wholly or in part, directly
2 and proximately caused and will, in the absence of the injunctive relief which PLAINTIFFS seek in
3 this Complaint, continue in the future to proximately cause the injuries and violations of rights set
4 forth fully below. Defendant HENNESSEY, as the chief supervisory and decision-making member
5 of the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department is sued in her individual capacity.
6 22. Defendant PAUL MIYAMOTO is, and at all times relevant to this Complaint was,
7 the Chief Deputy Sheriff of San Francisco County in charge of the Custody Division ("CD"), which
8 includes the Jails. As Chief Deputy Sheriff of San Francisco County in charge of the CD,
9 Defendant MIYAMOTO has at times relevant to this Complaint held a command and policy
10 making position with regard to all county jails, including the Jails. Defendant MIYAMOTO has
11 caused, created, authorized, condoned, ratified, approved or knowingly acquiesced in the illegal,
12 unconstitutional, and inhumane conditions, actions, policies, customs and practices that prevail at
13 Jails, as described fully below. There is a direct causal link between the affirmative acts and
14 omissions of Defendant MIYAMOTO, as the chief supervisory member of the San Francisco
15 Sheriff’s Department’s Custody Division, and the injuries and violations of rights set forth fully
16 below. Defendant MIYAMOTO has, wholly or in part, directly and proximately caused and will,
17 in the absence of the injunctive relief which Plaintiffs seek in this Complaint, continue in the future
18 to proximately cause the injuries and violations of rights set forth fully below. Defendant
19 MIYAMOTO is sued in his individual capacity.
20 23. Defendant JASON JACKSON is, and at all times relevant to this Complaint was, the
21 Captain of San Francisco County Sheriff Office’s County Jail #4 located at 850 Bryant Street, San
22 Francisco, California, 94103. As the captain with direct supervision over County Jail #4,
23 Defendant JACKSON is responsible for the daily conditions and operations of County Jail #4,
24 including the training and supervision of floor deputies and DOES 1 THRU 50. Defendant
25 JACKSON is regularly, if not daily, on the premises at a San Francisco County Jail. It is his
26 responsibility to be knowledgeable and familiar with the actual daily conditions and operations of
27 County Jail #4. As the Captain of County Jail #4, Defendant JACKSON has caused, created,
28 authorized, condoned, ratified, approved or knowingly acquiesced in the illegal, unconstitutional,
6
COMPLAINT
1 and inhumane conditions, actions, policies, customs and practices that prevail at County Jail #4, as
2 described fully below. There is a direct causal link between the affirmative acts and omissions of
3 Defendant Jackson, as the chief supervisory member of County Jail 4, and the injuries and
4 violations of rights set forth fully below. Defendant JACKSON has, wholly or in part, directly and
5 proximately caused and will, in the absence of the injunctive relief which Plaintiffs seek in this
6 Complaint, continue in the future to proximately cause the injuries and violations of rights set forth
7 fully below. Defendant JACKSON is sued in his individual capacity.
8 24. Defendant K. MCCONNELL is, and at all times relevant to this Complaint was, the
9 Captain of San Francisco County Sheriff Office’s County Jail #5 located at #1 Moreland Drive, San
10 Bruno, California, 94066. As the captain with direct supervision over County Jail #5, Defendant
11 MCCONNELL is responsible for the daily conditions and operations of County Jail #5, including
12 the training and supervision of floor deputies and DOES 1 THRU 50. Defendant MCCONNELL is
13 regularly, if not daily, on the premises at a San Francisco County Jail. There is a direct causal link
14 between the affirmative acts and omissions of Defendant Jackson, as the chief supervisory member
15 of County Jail 5, and the injuries and violations of rights set forth fully below. It is his
16 responsibility to be knowledgeable and familiar with the actual daily conditions and operations of
17 County Jail #5. As the Captain of County Jail #5, Defendant MCCONNELL has caused, created,
18 authorized, condoned, ratified, approved or knowingly acquiesced in the illegal, unconstitutional,
19 and inhumane conditions, actions, policies, customs and practices that prevail at County Jail #5, as
20 described fully below. Defendant MCCONNELL has, wholly or in part, directly and proximately
21 caused and will, in the absence of the injunctive relief which Plaintiffs seek in this Complaint,
22 continue in the future to proximately cause the injuries and violations of rights set forth fully below.
23 Defendant MCCONNELL is sued in his individual capacity.
24 25. Each and every Defendant named herein was at all times relevant to this Complaint
25 an officer or employee of the San Francisco County Sheriff’s Department, acting under the color of
26 law within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and acting pursuant to the authority of the Sheriff and
27 within the scope of their employment with the Sheriff.
28
7
COMPLAINT
1 26. Each and every individual Defendant was a command officer who had within his or
2 her own powers, to choose action or inaction, and had the power and authority for the training,
3 supervision and control of his or her subordinates in the manner in which Plaintiffs and members of
4 the Plaintiff class were held in custody. Every individual Defendant’s actions or inactions were a
5 primary or significant causal factor in the constitutional deprivations alleged herein, and the injuries
6 and harms complained of. Each individual Defendant had the power to effectuate the necessary
7 change to prevent the constitutional deprivations and injuries and harms complained of, but failed
8 and refused to do so. The actions or inactions of these individual, supervisory defendants set in
9 motion a series of acts by others, including his or her subordinates, which the individual supervisors
10 knew or reasonably should have known would cause others to inflict the constitutional injuries
11 complained of herein. The actions or inactions each individual Defendant took, were
12 demonstrations of reckless or callous indifference to the rights of Plaintiffs and members of the
13 Plaintiff class.
14 27. Does 1 through 50 are supervisory staff who staff the Jails and all of whom
15 contributed to the injuries, deprivations and losses complained of herein. The Doe defendants are
16 sued in their individual capacities.
17 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
18
I. THE FACILITIES
19
28. San Francisco County operates two main detention jails, County Jail 4 and County
20
Jail 5. County Jail 4 is on the 7th floor of the San Francisco Hall of Justice, which is located at 850
21
Bryant Street, San Francisco. The Hall of Justice and County Jail 4 were constructed in 1962. The
22
Hall of Justice is still in operation along with County Jail 4. County Jail 4 (hereinafter “CJ4”) has a
23
capacity for 402 inmates and holds both pretrial and sentenced prisoners. County Jail 5 is located
24
on watershed land on the outskirts of San Mateo County. Built in 2006, County Jail 5 (hereinafter
25
“CJ5”) replaced the former San Bruno Jail, and has a capacity of 768 inmates. Both CJ4 and CJ 5
26
incarcerate only men.
27
28
8
COMPLAINT
1 29. In CJ5 there are sixteen housing pods with 24 cells each. Cells hold two prisoners,
2 so each housing pod has the capacity of 48 prisoners. Each Pod is a semi-circle. The cells are on
3 two tiers, facing toward an open center. Along the opposite wall is the sheriff deputy’s station, and
4 between the deputy’s station and the cells is the common area, usually containing tables, benches
5 and chairs. The cells do not have bars, but the cell front is entirely clear glass.
6 30. In CJ4, the cells line corridors. The front of the cells are metal bars. Cell sizes can
7 be for a single prisoner, two prisoners, six prisoners or 12 prisoners. In the 12-prisoner cells, there
8 are bunk beds on one half, called the nighttime section, and the day room, which has table and
9 benches. In the nighttime section, the bunk beds are perpendicular to the hallway so that the first
10 bunk bed is easy to see, while the 6th bunk bed is at the opposite wall and difficult to see when
11 standing in the hallway.
12 II. SLEEP DEPRIVATION
13 31. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an adult between the
14 ages of 18 and 60 needs 7 or more hours of sleep per night for good health. Not getting enough sleep
15 is linked with many chronic diseases and conditions, such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease, obesity,
16 and depression. The National Institute of Health has published research showing that sleep
17 deprivation negatively impacts cognitive functioning over time, contributes to accidents and errors
18 and alterations in metabolic and endocrine function of individuals.
19 32. Although the schedule provides for a possible five hours of sleep, the entity and
20 individual defendants have several practices, customs, and/or policies that cause the PLAINTIFFS
21 and all class members to be chronically deprived of the essential and human need for sleep.
22 III. LIGHTING SCHEDULE
23 33. Light disrupts human sleep, and San Francisco County Jails’ lighting causes and/or
24 contributes to the prisoners’ regular and chronic sleep deprivation.
25 34. In CJ5, during lights out, the main lights in the community area and inside the cell
26 are turned off, but inside the cell, a night light turns on. The night light is bright enough to read by.
27 And in the common area, although the overhead lights are off, the deputy’s station is lit, and there
28
9
COMPLAINT
1 are other lights which remain on, so that the common area is well-lit enough to see clearly, even at
2 night. Because each cell has a clear glass front, all of that ambient light enters the cell.
3 35. In CJ4, the cells line corridors. The front of the cells are metal bars. After lights
4 out, the lights inside the cells go off, but the hallway lights remain on. Because of the bars, the
5 hallway light enters the cell.
6 36. In the Jails, lights out is at 10:30 p.m. and breakfast is served at 3:30. In CJ4, all
7 prisoners eat in their cells, so when breakfast is served, prisoners have to rise and walk to the bars
8 next to the hallway to receive their breakfast tray.
9 37. In CJ5, prisoners in Housing Pod 7 and 4 are required to walk to the glass to receive
10 their breakfast tray. On information and belief, plaintiffs allege that except for 7 and 4, the other
11 Housing Pods require the prisoners to walk into the POD’s common area to eat breakfast.
12 38. For those individuals with medical conditions, including those with diabetes the Jails
13 have a practice of forcing these individuals to wake up at 2:30 a.m. in order to conduct medical
14 procedures. Diabetics are woken up at 2:30 a.m. in order to receive finger pricks to evaluate their
15 blood sugar levels.
16 39. As a result, the longest period of time in which PLAINTIFFS or any prisoner in the
17 Jails is theoretically able to sleep at night is 5 hours, far less than the United States Center for Disease
18 Control’s recommended 7 hours. Many prisoners have a difficult time getting regular nighttime sleep
19 because of the 24-hour lighting and the defendants’ night time activities.
20 IV. VISUAL SAFETY CHECKS
21 40. Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, tit. 15, § 1027.5, routine visual safety
22 checks must be conducted of all prisoners at least hourly.
23 41. At the Jails, deputy sheriffs tasked with performing visual safety checks do not limit
24 their hourly routine checks to visual observations. Instead, said deputies engage in activities to
25 actually wake up prisoners during the sleep period by shining bright red-light flashlights into the
26 eyes of sleeping prisoners, and demanding that prisoners wake and display their ID bracelets to the
27 guards during these checks. If the bright flashlights do not cause the sleeping prisoner to respond or
28 acknowledge the deputy, deputies will bang on the metal doors or glass doors in order to force
10
COMPLAINT
1 prisoners to awaken and move or otherwise acknowledge the deputy. If banging does not work,
2 guards will enter the cell and yell the prisoner’s name until the prisoner wakes up. Thus,
3 defendants force prisoners to awaken at least hourly. This activity is especially egregious along the
4 mainline in CJ4, where the 12 person cells are on C block and B block. Due to the configuration of
5 the cells, the deputies cannot easily see the beds towards the back of the cell and frequently and
6 loudly demand that prisoners wake up, move, show their ID bracelets or otherwise acknowledge the
7 guards. These checks are done frequently, often hourly or less, disrupting the sleep of everyone in
8 the cell.
9 42. These practices cause and/or contribute to PLAINTIFFS’ sleep deprivation.
10
V. DEPUTIES ACTIVITIES AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
11
43. During the nighttime sleep hours, the deputy sheriffs on duty have fewer
12
responsibilities for prisoners because prisoners are locked down in their cells. Deputy sheriffs spend
13
their timing walking along the cells. Because of the sleep deprivations and disruptions there are
14
insomniacs among the prisoners. Deputies, due to their light duties, will stand outside cell glass and
15
talk to these insomniacs, further disturbing the sleep of other prisoners.
16
44. At night, for various reasons, mostly, not exigent, announcements are made over the
17
public address system, an added factor in sleep disruption.
18
VI. PILL CALLS & JAIL ACTIVITIES
19
45. During nighttime hours, the Jails distribute medication and medical
20
attention. Prisoners who have diabetes are required to wake up at 2:30 to have finger pricks in order
21
to have their blood sugar monitored. These activities and services are announced by loud verbal
22
announcements, sometimes through the public address system, broadcast to all prisoners. On
23
information and belief, plaintiffs allege that 5 to 10 percent of the prisoners in the Jails suffer from
24
diabetes.
25
46. These actions are so disruptive and loud, waking up prisoners sharing that cell and
26
those in neighboring cells, contributing to the prisoners' sleep deprivation.
27
VII. EFFECTS OF SLEEP DEPRIVATION ON INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS
28
11
COMPLAINT
1 47. ANTOINE DEWHITT is a pretrial detainee who has been in CJ5 since April 2013.
2 He has been in custody for over six years. While in custody, he developed diabetes. On
3 information and belief, he alleges that the development of diabetes is due in significant part to the
4 high starch and vitamin deficient diet, including the lack of Vitamin D, the sleep deprivation and
5 disruption and lack of outdoor exercise. As a result of his diabetes, he is woken up every day at
6 2:30 a.m. This results in ANTOINE, since his diagnosis of diabetes, of never having more than 4
7 hours of continuous nighttime sleep. He is extremely sleep deprived, has difficulty expressing
8 himself, is short tempered, and has experienced a number of health concerns. He has experienced
9 debilitating pain at times, difficulty getting out of bed, some paralysis, none of which has received
10 appropriate medical attention. While the jail requires prisoners to be cooperative and non-violent,
11 and imposes discipline including isolation and solitary confinement for prisoners who fail to be
12 compliant, ANTOINE alleges that the Jails are deliberately forcing and coercing prisoners to be
13 short-tempered, irritable and have difficulty communicating through their regular program and
14 policy of sleep deprivation and sleep disruption. ANTOINE has suffered discipline as a result of
15 mental confusion and disorientation due to his severe sleep deprivation. ANTOINE has requested
16 and is receiving mental health counseling, however, mental health counseling does not get to the
17 root of the problem, which is daily sleep deprivation and disruption, going on for years.
18 48. CORY BUTLER is a pretrial detainee. He has been incarcerated since September
19 2017. He is currently incarcerated in CJ5. He has asserted his factual innocence and is preparing
20 for trial. Due to his inability to sleep because of the jail’s schedule, he is now experiencing mental
21 and cognitive issues, including difficulty focusing and concentrating, and at times confusion and
22 brain fog. CORY is extremely concerned that his declining mental acuity and inability to focus will
23 hurt his ability to assist in his defense at trial. Therefore, it is of great urgency that he is able to rest,
24 and properly prepare for his trial.
25 49. KISHAWN NORBERT is a pretrial detainee. He has been incarcerated since July
26 2014. He asserts his factual innocence and is preparing for trial. He was incarcerated at CJ4 until a
27 few months ago, when he was moved to CJ5. He is currently in administrative segregation, and
28 subjected to environmental deprivation, and only allowed out of his cell for a half hour a day. As a
12
COMPLAINT
1 result of his long incarceration and the years being subjected to sleep disruption and sleep
2 deprivation, he has developed some debilitating health problems, including frequent migraine
3 headaches. The Jail only provides him with over the counter pain relievers, which have limited
4 efficacy. These headaches cause him to be unable to function for long periods of time. On one of
5 his cases, he is representing himself in pro-per, and due to the sleep deprivation, he is now
6 experiencing mental and cognitive issues, including difficulty focusing and concentrating, and at
7 times confusion and brain fog. He is concerned that he lacks energy, is not functioning well, does
8 not communicating effectively and efficiently and has difficulty correctly comprehending what
9 others are saying. He is impaired cognitively, functionally, mentally and emotionally. He has
10 difficulty assisting in his defense in a meaningful manner and is cognitively impaired. His overall
11 health is negatively impacted.
12 50. DELON BARKER and JAVONN ALLEN are currently incarcerated in CJ5.
13 DELON BARKER has been in custody since November 2018. JAVONN ALLEN has been in
14 custody since September 2018. Although JAVONN ALLEN has only been in custody for eight
15 months and DELON BARKER has only been in custody for six months, they already feel the
16 negative effects of sleep deprivation. They are experiencing depression, headaches, irritability, not
17 wanting to socialize, difficulty focusing and reading, lack of interest. Also, as a result of the sleep
18 deprivation, they have greater difficulty sleeping and are experiencing insomnia. They are already
19 experiencing cognitive, functional, mental and emotional impairment.
20 51. JOSE POOT is currently an inmate at CJ4. He is a pretrial detainee and has been
21 incarcerated since June 14, 2016. He is currently experiencing regular headaches, has no energy,
22 and feels listless.
23 52. MONTRAIL BRACKENS is currently an inmate at CJ4. He is a pretrial detainee
24 and has been incarcerated since December 11, 2012. MONTRAIL feels that he has difficulty
25 thinking clearly, reading, learning new information, and concentrating. In addition, MONTRAIL’s
26 immune system is compromised and he has been subject, particularly in the last six months, to
27 repeated colds, flus, respiratory problems. He lacks energy, and does not feel that he can get
28 anything done.
13
COMPLAINT
1 53. KENYON NORBERT is currently incarcerated at CJ4, having been moved there
2 recently. Previously, he was incarcerated at CJ5. He is a pretrial detainee and has been
3 incarcerated since July 8, 2014. Partly as a consequence of the sleep disruption, he is experiencing
4 insomnia, has difficulty falling asleep, and difficulty staying asleep. He is easily woken up, and
5 every time the sheriff deputies flash that very bright flashlight in his eyes, he is startled awake,
6 which is a jarring and disruptive experience. As a result of this chronic and daily jarring and
7 disruptive sleep experience, it is a challenge for him to remain calm and composed. He has gained
8 almost 100 pounds, and is concerned that his health is compromised. As a pretrial detainee, he has
9 consistently asserted his factual innocence and seeks to prove his innocence at trial. His inability to
10 obtain rest, and the routine conduct of deputies in jarring him awake, nightly, is a form of torture.
11 54. MARSHALL HIGGINBOTHAM is currently incarcerated at CJ5. He is a pretrial
12 detainee and has been incarcerated since December 2016. For two and a half years, he has
13 experienced routine, daily sleep deprivation and sleep disruption. He is especially disturbed by the
14 24 hours of light in his cell. He is impaired cognitively, functionally and psychiatrically. He
15 cannot assist in his defense in a meaningful manner and is cognitively impaired. It appears that his
16 overall health is being negatively impacted.
17 55. As a result of this sleep disturbance and sleep deprivation, Plaintiffs’ and all class
18 members’ overall health is negatively impacted. They are experiencing memory loss, loss of
19 words, loss of names, inability to focus, inability to concentrate and difficulty remembering
20 sequences of events. They are subject to headaches, migraines, depression, anxiety, and emotional
21 distress, as well as overall health detriments, lack of energy, a compromised immune system, and
22 an increased sensitivity to pain.
23 56. Defendants are purposely operating and perpetuating an environment where
24 plaintiffs and members of the class are deprived of the fundamental human needs, such as sleep,
25 necessary for clear thinking and rational, logical decision making, patience and the ability to
26 comprehend and cooperate. Instead, Defendants have created and maintain an environment to set
27 plaintiffs and members of the class to repeatedly fail. Defendants then punish and discipline
28
14
COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff class for “making bad choices” or their inability to
2 comprehend and to follow Jail rules.
3 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO’S
4 POLICY, CUSTOM, AND PRACTICE
5 57. The lights out and breakfast schedules are part of Defendants’ adopted and written
6 policies and procedures. The purpose of these policies and procedures is for the ease of
7 Defendants’ operations in total disregard to the human needs and constitutional rights of prisoners
8 to sleep.
9 58. The Jails justify the unreasonably early breakfast time on two factors. The first is
10 the abnormal hour, 3:30 in the afternoon, in which the Jails serve dinner, so as to comply with Title
11 15’s requirement that meals are not more than 12 hours apart. The second is the time required to
12 transport prisoners to court. And while the transit from San Bruno to 850 Bryant Street takes only a
13 half hour to 45 minutes at most, and court starts at 9 a.m., the Jails insist that transport of prisoners
14 to court must begin at 4:30 a.m., which then justifies the 3:30 breakfast time.
15 59. The nighttime wake-up for medication, particularly for diabetics is designed to
16 accommodate the unreasonably early breakfast time.
17 60. The 24 hour lighting in CJ5 is deemed a safety and security issue, but the Jails have
18 not offered any means for inmates to mitigate the lights that disrupt and prevent their sleep.
19 61. While 15 CCR 2017.5 requires “visual” safety checks of prisoners, there is no
20 requirement that guards deliberately wake up prisoners on an hourly basis, or require that prisoners
21 wake up and move. These alleged “requirements” are policy developments by Defendants which
22 are not required by code or law or regulation, in total disregard to the human needs and
23 constitutional rights of prisoners to sleep. Sheriff deputies and employees are specifically
24 instructed and trained by Defendants and each of them to execute these safety checks in a manner
25 which is purposely, deliberately and results in the sleep disruption of the prisoners under their
26 custody.
27 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
28
15
COMPLAINT
1 62. All Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and
2 (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of a class of all prisoners who are now, or
3 will be in the future, incarcerated in the San Francisco County Jails (“Prisoner Class”).
4 Numerosity: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)
5 63. The Prisoner Class is sufficiently numerous that joinder of all members of the class
6 is impracticable and unfeasible. Currently, there are approximately 1,200 prisoners in custody on
7 any one day in the Jails and on information and belief allege that approximately 30,000 prisoners
8 are processed and incarcerated in the course of the year in the Jails. All prisoners in the Jails are
9 subject to Defendants’ policies and procedures regarding sleep denial and sleep disturbance and the
10 refusal to permit grievances. Due to these policies, customs, and practices, all prisoners in the Jails
11 are currently harmed or are at substantial risk of being harmed.
12 64. The Prisoner Class members are identifiable using records maintained in the
13 ordinary course of business by Defendants.
14 Commonality: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2)
15 65. There are multiple questions of law and fact common to the Prisoner Class,
16 including, but not limited to:
17 a. Whether the jail’s requirement that prisoners be in lit surroundings 24 hours a day violates
18 the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Cruel and Unusual Punishment
19 Clause of the of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article I, Sections 7
20 and 17 of the California Constitution;
21 b. Whether Defendants’ scheduling that provides for only a maximum potential duration of
22 five hours of nighttime sleep violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the
23 Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the of the Eighth Amendment to the United States
24 Constitution, and Article I, Sections 7 and 17 of the California Constitution;
25 c. Whether Defendants’ policies and practices of regular sleep disruption violate the Due
26 Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the
27 of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article I, Sections 7 and 17 of the
28 California Constitution;
16
COMPLAINT
1 d. Whether Defendants’ policies and practices of not permitting prisoners to have a

2 sufficient block of uninterrupted sleep pose a substantial risk of serious harm to prisoners in their
3 custody;
4 e. Whether Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to the Prisoner Class members’
5 risk of injury and harm from the scheduling of an insufficient duration of sleep and the regular
6 disruption of the limited sleep duration they are provided;
7 66. Defendants are expected to raise common defenses to these claims, including
8 denying that their actions violate the law.
9
10 Typicality: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3)
11 67. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the members of the
12 proposed class as their claims arise from the same policies, practices, and courses of conduct, and
13 their claims are based on the same theory of law as the Prisoner Class claims.
14 Adequacy: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4)
15 68. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the putative
16 Prisoner Class members and diligently service as Class Representatives. Plaintiffs’ interests are co-
17 extensive with those of the Prisoner Class and Plaintiffs have no conflict(s) of interest that would be
18 antagonistic to those of the other class members. Plaintiffs have retained counsel who are
19 competent and experienced in complex class action litigation and prisoner’s rights litigation and
20 who possess the resources necessary to fairly and adequately represent the Prisoner Class.
21 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)
22 69. This action is also maintainable as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
23 Procedure 23(b)(2) because the Defendants’ policies, practices, actions, and omissions that form the
24 basis of the claims of the Prisoner Class are common to and apply generally to all members of the
25 Prisoner Class. All of the Jails’ policies are centrally promulgated, disseminated, and enforced by
26 Defendants. The injunctive and declaratory relief sought is appropriate and will apply as a whole to
27 all members of the Prisoner Class.
28
17
COMPLAINT
1 70. The claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class. The claims
2 of the class members arise from the actions that resulted in damages to the class representatives and
3 are based on the same legal theories.
4 PRISONER SUB-CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
5 71. All Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and
6 (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of a class of all prisoners who have
7 medical conditions that currently subject them to be woken up at 2:30 a.m. for medical treatment,
8 medication or medical testing, including those who suffer from diabetes, who are now, or will be in
9 the future, incarcerated in the San Francisco County Jails (“Prisoner Sub-class”).
10
11 Numerosity: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)
12 72. The Prisoner-Sub Class is sufficiently numerous that joinder of all members of the
13 class is impracticable and unfeasible. On information and believe, plaintiffs allege that 5% to 10%
14 of all prisoners in the Jails suffer from diabetes, so that the current sub-class numbers 60 to 120
15 persons. As discovery has not yet commenced, plaintiffs assert on information and belief that the
16 number of sub-class members is actually larger as there are other prisoners with medical conditions,
17 in addition to diabetes, who are now being woken up at 2:30 a.m. On information and belief,
18 plaintiffs allege that within a year’s time, the Jails process and houses approximately 1,000
19 prisoners with medical conditions who they routinely wake up at 2:30 a.m. All prisoners in the
20 Jails are subject to Defendants policies and procedures regarding sleep denial and sleep disturbance
21 and the refusal to permit grievances. Due to the Jails’ policies and procedures, all prisoners in the
22 Jails are currently harmed or are at substantial risk of being harmed, due to the fact that these 2:30
23 a.m. medical events are noisy, and wake up all prisoners in the vicinity of the members of this
24 prisoner sub-class.
25 73. The Prisoner Sub-Class members are identifiable using records maintained in the
26 ordinary course of business by Defendants.
27 Commonality: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2)
28
18
COMPLAINT
1 74. There are multiple questions of law and fact common to the Prisoner Sub-Class, in
2 addition to the common questions of law and fact for the general class including, but not limited to:
3 a. Whether the jail’s requirement that prisoners be woken up at 2:30 a.m. for ostensible
4 medical treatment and testing, necessitated by unrelated jail scheduling (such as the time of dinner
5 service, and the jail’s convenience in transporting prisoners to court) violates the Due Process
6 Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the of the
7 Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article I, Sections 7 and 17 of the
8 California Constitution;
9 b. Whether Defendants’ scheduling that provides for only a maximum potential duration of
10 four hours of nighttime sleep violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and
11 the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the of the Eighth Amendment to the United States
12 Constitution, and Article I, Sections 7 and 17 of the California Constitution;
13 c. Whether Defendants’ policies and practices of regular sleep disruption violate the Due the
14 Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause
15 of the of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article I, Sections 7 and 17
16 of the California Constitution;
17 d. Whether Defendants’ policies and practices of not permitting Prisoner Sub-Class
18 members to have a sufficient block of uninterrupted sleep poses a substantial risk of serious harm to
19 those in their custody;
20 e. Whether Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to the Prisoner Sub-Class
21 members’ risk of injury and harm from the scheduling of an insufficient duration of sleep and the
22 regular disruption of the little sleep they are given, insufficient as it is;
23 75. Defendants are expected to raise common defenses to these claims, including
24 denying that their actions violate the law.
25 Typicality: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3)
26 76. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the members of the
27 Prisoner Sub-Class as their claims arise from the same policies, practices, and courses of conduct,
28 and their claims are based on the same theory of law as the Prisoner Class claims.
19
COMPLAINT
1 Adequacy: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4)

2 77. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Prisoner
3 Sub-Class and diligently service as Class Representatives. Plaintiffs’ interests are co-extensive
4 with those of the Prisoner Sub-Class and Plaintiffs have no conflict(s) of interest that would be
5 antagonistic to those of the other class members. Plaintiffs have retained counsel who are
6 competent and experienced in complex class action litigation and prisoner’s rights litigation and
7 who possess the resources necessary to fairly and adequately represent the Prisoner Class.
8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)
9 78. This action is also maintainable as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
10 Procedure 23(b)(2) because the Defendants’ policies, practices, actions, and omissions that form the
11 basis of the claims of the Prisoner Class and Prisoner Sub-Class are common to and apply generally
12 to all members of the Prisoner Class. All of the Jails’ policies are centrally promulgated,
13 disseminated, and enforced by Defendants. The injunctive and declaratory relief sought is
14 appropriate and will apply as a whole to all members of the Prisoner Sub-Class.
15 79. The claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Prisoner Sub-
16 Class. The claims of the Prisoner Sub-Class arise from the actions that resulted in damages to the
17 class representatives and are based on the same legal theories.
18
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
19 VIOLATION OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS BY DENYING PLAINTIFFS AND
20 OTHER PRISONERS THEIR BASIC HUMAN RIGHT TO NECESSARY SLEEP
21 (Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
22 80. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation contained in the above
23 paragraphs 1-79 with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
24 81. The First Claim is asserted by Plaintiffs and all class members against Defendants
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY, SHERIFF, HENNESSY, MIYAMOTO, JACKSON, MCCONNELL
25
and DOES 1 to 50.
26
82. By their policies, customs, and practices described above, including but not limited to
27
the Jails’ nighttime lighting, Jail schedules, nighttime activities and the manner in which the Jail
28
conducts safety checks, Defendants subject Plaintiffs, the Prisoner Class, and the Prisoner Sub-Class
20
COMPLAINT
members to a substantial risk of serious harm and injury from the harmful and inhumane effects of
1
daily insufficient sleep duration. The conditions in the Jails administered by the Defendants that have
2
and will continue to unreasonably deprive the Plaintiffs and all class members of sleep result in a
3
constitutional deprivation under the Fourteenth Amendment.
4
83. By preventing prisoners from getting the necessary amount of sleep, the Defendants’
5 policies, customs, and practices create a detention condition causing harm that exceeds or is
6 independent of the inherent discomforts of confinement, and which is rationally unrelated to a
7 legitimate nonpunitive governmental objective or is excessive in relation to that purpose.
8 84. These policies, customs, and practices have been, and continue to be, implemented by
9 Defendants and their agents, officials, employees and all persons acting in concert with them under
10 color of state law, in their official capacities, and are the proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ and all class
members’ ongoing deprivation of due process rights secured by the United States Constitution under
11
the Fourteenth Amendment, are not rationally related to a legitimate nonpunitive governmental
12
purpose, or are excessive in relation to any such nonpunitive governmental purpose.
13
85. The policies, practices and customs described above are the official policies, practices,
14
and customs of Defendant SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY, and are the direct and proximate cause of
15 Plaintiffs being subjected to known risks of serious harms in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
16 The policies, practices, and customs described above include Defendant SAN FRANCISCO
17 COUNTY’s failure to train its staff in the face of an obvious need for training to prevent the
18 violations described above.
19 86. Individually, a causal connection exists between Defendants HENNESSY’s,
20 MIYAMOTO’s, JACKSON’s, MCCONNELL’s and DOES 1 to 50’s actions in promulgating their

policies, practices and customs and the constitutional violations complained of herein because these
21
individual Defendants set in motion a series of acts by others, namely the implementation of said
22
policies, customs, and practices by their subordinates that resulted in sleep disruption and
23
deprivation, and/or knowingly refused to terminate said series of acts by others, which these
24
individual Defendants knew or reasonably should have known would cause their subordinates to
25 inflict constitutional injuries.
26 87. Defendants have been and are aware of all of the deprivations complained of herein,
27 and have condoned or been deliberately indifferent to such conduct.
28 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the Prisoner Class and the Prisoner Sub-Class they represent
21
COMPLAINT
request relief as outlined below.

1
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
2
VIOLATION OF EIGHTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS
3
(BASIC HUMAN RIGHT TO SLEEP)
4
(Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
5
88. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation contained in the above
6
paragraphs 1-79 with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
7 89. The Second Claim is asserted by Plaintiffs and all class members against Defendants
8 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY, SHERIFF, HENNESSY, MIYAMOTO, JACKSON, MCCONNELL
9 and DOES 1 to 50.
10 90. By their policies and practices described above, including but not limited to the Jails’
11 nighttime lighting, Jail schedules, nighttime activities and the manner in which the Jail conducts
12 safety checks, Defendants subject Plaintiffs and the class members they represent, to a substantial
risk of serious harm and injury from the harmful and inhumane effects of daily insufficient sleep
13
duration. A minimal duration of sleep is a minimal civilized measure of the necessity of life.
14
91. These policies and practices have been, and continue to be, implemented by
15
Defendants and their agents, officials, employees and all persons acting in concert with them under
16
color of state law, in their official capacities, and are the proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ and all class
17 members’ ongoing deprivation of rights secured by the United States Constitution under the Eighth
18 Amendment. The policies, practices and customs described above are the official policies, practices
19 and customs of Defendant SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY, and are the direct and proximate cause of
20 Plaintiffs being subjected to known risks of serious harms in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The
21 policies, practices and customs described above include Defendant SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY’s
22 failure to train its staff in the face of an obvious need for training to prevent the violations described
above.
23
92. Individually, a causal connection exists between Defendants HENNESSY’s,
24
MIYAMOTO’s, JACKSON’s, MCCONNELL’s and DOES 1 to 50’s actions in promulgating their
25
policies, practices and customs and the constitutional violations complained of herein because these
26
individual Defendants set in motion a series of acts by others, namely the implementation of said
27 policies, customs, and practices by their subordinates that resulted in sleep disruption and
28 deprivation, and/or knowingly refused to terminate said series of acts by others, which these
22
COMPLAINT
individual Defendants knew or reasonably should have known would cause their subordinates to
1
inflict constitutional injuries.
2
93. Defendants have been and are aware of all of the deprivations complained of herein,
3
and have condoned or been deliberately indifferent to such conduct.
4
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and all class members they represent request relief as outlined
5 below.
6 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
7 VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS & FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS
8 (SLEEP DISRUPTION)
9 (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
94. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation contained in the above
10
paragraphs 1-79 with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
11
95. The Third Claim is asserted by Plaintiffs, the Prisoner Class, and the Prisoner Sub-
12
Class they represent, against Defendants SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY, SHERIFF, HENNESSY,
13
MIYAMOTO, JACKSON, MCCONNELL and DOES 1 to 50.
14
96. By their policies, practices and direct actions described above, including but not
15
limited to the Jails’ nighttime lighting, Jail schedules, nighttime activities and the manner in which
16
the Jail conducts safety checks, Defendants subject Plaintiffs and the class members they represent, to
17
a substantial risk of serious harm and injury from the harmful and inhumane effects of regular sleep
18
19 disturbance. The conditions in the Jails administered by the Defendants that have and will continue
20 to unreasonably deprive the Plaintiffs and all class members of sleep result in constitutional
21 deprivations under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
22 97. By preventing prisoners from getting the necessary amount of sleep, the Defendants’
23 policies, customs, and practices create a detention condition causing harm that exceeds or is
24 independent of the inherent discomforts of confinement, and which is rationally unrelated to a
25 legitimate nonpunitive governmental objective or is excessive in relation to that purpose.
26 98. These policies, practices and direct actions have been, and continue to be,
27 implemented by Defendants and their agents, officials, employees and all persons acting in concert
28 with them under color of state law, in their official capacities, and are the proximate cause of
23
COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiffs’ and all class members’ ongoing deprivation of due process rights secured by the United
2 States Constitution under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, are not rationally related to a
3 legitimate nonpunitive governmental purpose or is excessive in relation to any such nonpunitive
4 governmental purpose.
5 99. The policies, practices and direct actions described above are the official policies,
6 practices and customs of Defendant SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY and are the direct and proximate
7 cause of Plaintiffs being subjected to known risks of serious harms in violation of the Fifth and
8 Fourteenth Amendment. The policies, practices and customs described above include Defendant SAN
9 FRANCISCO COUNTY’s failure to train its staff in the face of an obvious need for training to
10 prevent the violations described above.
13 policies, practices and customs and the constitutional violations complained of herein because these
14 individual Defendants set in motion a series of acts by others, namely the implementation of said
17 individual Defendants knew or reasonably should have known would cause their subordinates to
21 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and all class members they represent request relief as outlined
22 below.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
23
VIOLATION OF EIGHTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS
24
CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT OF REGULAR SLEEP DISRUPTION
25
(Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
26
102. PLAINTIFFS, repeat and re-allege the allegations in paragraphs 1 to 79 to the extent
27 relevant, as if fully set forth in this Claim.
28
24
COMPLAINT
1 103. The Fourth Claim is asserted by Plaintiffs, the Prisoner Class, and the Prisoner Sub-
2 Class they represent, against Defendants SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY, SHERIFF, HENNESSY,
3 MIYAMOTO, JACKSON, MCCONNELL and DOES 1 to 50.
4 104. Defendants JACKSON and MCCONNELL and DOES 1 THRU 25, acting or
5 purporting to act in the performance of their official duties, subjected Plaintiffs and the members of
6 the prisoner class’ to ongoing and regular sleep disturbances in violation of their rights secured by the
7 Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
8 105. Defendants JACKSON and MCCONNELL and DOES 1 THRU 25, acting or
9 purporting to act in the performance of their official duties, failed to intercede and/or were integral
10 participants to complained of actions of deliberating disturbing and interfering with Plaintiffs and the
11 members of the prisoner class’ right to the human necessity of sleep, in violation of their rights
12 secured by the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
13 106. Defendants SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY, SHERIFF, HENNESSY, MIYAMOTO,
14 and DOES 26 to 50, acting under color of state law and as policymaking authorities, knew or should
15 have known that subordinate employees under their command, including Defendants JACKSON,
16 MCCONNELL, and DOES 1 THRU 25, were inadequately trained, supervised, or disciplined
17 resulting from their inadequate policies, customs, or practices concerning the actions of regularly
18 disturbing and interfering with prisoners’ sleep in violation of Plaintiff s and all class members’ right
19 to the human necessity of sleep, secured by the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
20 107. The policies, practices and direct actions described above are the official policies,
21 practices and customs of Defendant SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY, and are the direct and proximate
22 cause of Plaintiffs and the prisoner class members’ and the Prisoner Sub-Class being subjected to
23 known risks of serious harms in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The policies, practices and
24 customs described above include Defendant SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY’s failure to train its staff
25 in the face of an obvious need for training to prevent the violations described above.
25
COMPLAINT
8 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and all class members they represent request relief as outlined
9 below.
10 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
11 (Article I, Section 7 of the California Constitution)
12 110. PLAINTIFFS re-repeat and re-allege the allegations in paragraphs 1 to 79 to the extent
14 111. The Fifth Cause of Action is asserted by Plaintiffs. the Prisoner Class, and the Prisoner
15 Sub-Class they represent against all Defendants.
16 112. Defendants, by deliberately preventing Plaintiffs and all class members from being
17 able to obtain adequate sleep both by limiting the available time for night time sleep and through
18 actions that interrupt, interfere, disrupt and disturb night time sleep, imposes an atypical, substantial,
19 and different hardship on the prisoner in relation to the ordinary incidents of incarcerated life, so as to
20 create a liberty interest protected by due process. By their policies and practices described above,
21 Defendants subject Plaintiffs and the Prisoner Classes they represent, to a substantial risk of harm due
22 to the denial of due process in relationship to the ordinary, human requirement of sleep. These
23 policies and practices have been, and continue to be, implemented by Defendants and their agents or
24 employees in their official capacities, and are the proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ and the Prisoner
25 Classes’ ongoing deprivation of rights secured by the California Constitution, Article I, Section 7.
26
COMPLAINT
114. Defendants have been and are aware of all of the deprivations complained of herein,
6
and have condoned or been deliberately indifferent to such conduct.
7
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the class members they represent request relief as outlined
8
below.
9
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
10
NEGLIGENCE
11
12 115. PLAINTIFFS repeat and re-allege the allegations in paragraphs 1 to 79 to the extent

116. The Sixth Cause of Action is asserted by Plaintiffs, the Prisoner Class, and the
14
Prisoner Sub-Class against Defendants HENNESSY, MIYAMOTO, JACKSON, MCCONNELL and
15
DOES 1 to 50’s
16
117. Defendants HENNESSY, MIYAMOTO, JACKSON, MCCONNELL and DOES 1 to
17
50’s actions and inactions were motivated by evil motive or intent, involved reckless or callous
18 indifference to Plaintiffs’ rights secured by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S.
19 Constitution, or were wantonly or oppressively done.
20 118. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY,
21 SHERIFF, HENNESSY’s, MIYAMOTO’s, JACKSON’s, MCCONNELL’s and DOES 1 to 50’s actions and
22 inactions, Plaintiffs and members of the class suffered injuries entitling them to receive
23 compensatory damages against Defendants SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY, SHERIFF, HENNESSY,

MIYAMOTO, JACKSON, MCCONNELL and DOES 1 to 50.
24
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and class members pray for relief as hereunder appears.
25
26
27
28
27
COMPLAINT
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

1
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
2
(Cal. Gov. Code § 820(a))
3
119. PLAINTIFFS, the Prisoner Class, and the Prisoner Sub-Class repeat and re-allege the
4
allegations in paragraphs 1 to 79 to the extent relevant, as if fully set forth in this Claim.
5 120. The Seventh Cause of Action is asserted by Plaintiffs, the Prisoner Class, and the
6 Prisoner Sub-Class against Defendants HENNESSY, MIYAMOTO, JACKSON, MCCONNELL and
7 DOES 1 to 50’s JACKSON, MCCONNELL, and DOES 1 to 50.
8 121. Defendants HENNESSY, MIYAMOTO, JACKSON, MCCONNELL and DOES 1 to
9 50’s in the performance of their official duties as peace officers, engaged in outrageous conduct and,
10 as a result of that outrageous conduct, Plaintiffs and members of plaintiff class did suffer and
continue to suffer severe emotional distress.
11
122. Defendants HENNESSY’s, MIYAMOTO’s, JACKSON’s, MCCONNELL’s and DOES 1 to
12
50’s actions and inactions constituted oppression and/or malice resulting in great harm to Plaintiffs
13
and members of plaintiff class.
14
123. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants HENNESSY, MIYAMOTO,
15
JACKSON, MCCONNELL and DOES 1 to 50’s actions and inactions, Plaintiffs and all members of
16 plaintiff class suffered injuries entitling them to receive compensatory and punitive damages against
17 Defendants JACKSON, MCCONNELL, and DOES 1 to 50. HENNESSY, MIYAMOTO,
18 JACKSON, MCCONNELL and DOES 1 to 50’s.
19 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and class members prays for relief as hereunder appears.
20 REQUEST FOR RELIEF

Plaintiffs and the class and subclass they represent have no adequate remedy at law to redress
21
the wrongs suffered as set forth in this Complaint. Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer
22
irreparable injury as a result of the unlawful acts, omissions, policies, and practices of the Defendants
23
as alleged herein, unless Plaintiffs are granted the relief they request. Plaintiffs and Defendants have
24
an actual controversy and opposing legal positions as to Defendants’ violations of the constitutions
25
and laws of the United States and the State of California. The need for relief is critical because the
26 rights at issue are paramount under the constitutions and laws of the United States and the State of
27 California.
28
28
COMPLAINT
WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS and all class members pray for judgment and the following
1
relief against DEFENDANTS:
2
1. Enter injunctive relief directing DEFENDANTS, absent exigent circumstances to:
3
a. Provide all prisoners with the ability to have uninterrupted and undisturbed
4
block of night time sleep of no less than 7 hours.
5 b. Prohibit correctional staff from waking prisoners during the nighttime sleeping
6 hours including during any safety checks;
7 c. Schedule medication distribution and medical procedures no earlier than
8 breakfast time.
9 d. Refrain from making announcements over the jail public address system
10 during the nighttime sleep hours;

e. Provide comprehensive physical and mental health services to any prisoner as
11
needed;
12
2. Award compensatory and punitive damages;
13
3. Award declaratory relief according to proof;
14
4. Award PLAINTIFFS costs and expense of this action and reasonable attorney's fees in
15 accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other appropriate authority;
16 5. An order retaining jurisdiction of this case until Defendants have fully complied with
17 the orders of this Court, and there is a reasonable assurance that Defendants will continue to comply
18 in the future absent continuing jurisdiction; and
19 6. Such other and further relief as the case requires and the Court deems just and proper.
20
Dated: May 20, 2019 LAW OFFICE OF YOLANDA HUANG
21
22
23
By:__/s/ Yolanda Huang____________________
24 YOLANDA HUANG
25
26
27
28
29
COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
COMPLAINT
JS-CAND 44 (Rev. 06/17) Case 4:19-cv-02722-KAW Document 1-1 Filed 05/20/19 Page 1 of 2
CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS-CAND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law,
except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved in its original form by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the Clerk of
Court to initiate the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. JOSE
(a) POOT,
PLAINTIFFS
KISHAWN NORBERT, KENYON NORBERT, MARSHALL HIGGINBOTHAM, ANTOINE
DEFENDANTS
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN
DEWHITT, CORY BUTLER, MONTRAIL BRACKENS, DELON BARKER, and JAVONN ALLEN, on behalf of FRANCISCO SHERIFF VICKI HENNESSEY; CHIEF DEPUTY SHERIFF PAUL MIYAMOTO; CAPTAIN JASON
themselves individually and others similarly situated, as a class and Subclass JACKSON, CAPTAIN MCCONNELL and John & Jane DOEs, Nos. 1 - 50.
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff San Francisco County of Residence of First Listed Defendant San Francisco
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Dennis Herrera, San Francisco City Attorney
Yolanda Huang City Hall, Room 234, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Pl., San Francisco, CA 94102
475 14th Street, Suite 500, Oakland, CA 94612 510-329-2140 (415) 554-4700
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
PTF DEF PTF DEF
1 U.S. Government Plaintiff 3 Federal Question Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
of Business In This State
Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
2 U.S. Government Defendant 4 Diversity of Business In Another State
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6
Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure of 422 Appeal 28 USC § 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine Property 21 USC § 881 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury – Product
130 Miller Act Liability 690 Other § 157 § 3729(a))
315 Airplane Product Liability
140 Negotiable Instrument 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment
320 Assault, Libel & Slander LABOR PROPERTY RIGHTS
150 Recovery of Pharmaceutical Personal 410 Antitrust
330 Federal Employers’ 710 Fair Labor Standards Act 820 Copyrights
Overpayment Of Injury Product Liability 430 Banks and Banking
Liability 720 Labor/Management 830 Patent
Veteran’s Benefits 368 Asbestos Personal Injury 450 Commerce
340 Marine Relations 835 Patent─Abbreviated New
151 Medicare Act Product Liability
345 Marine Product Liability 740 Railway Labor Act Drug Application 460 Deportation
152 Recovery of Defaulted PERSONAL PROPERTY 470 Racketeer Influenced &
350 Motor Vehicle 751 Family and Medical 840 Trademark
Student Loans (Excludes 370 Other Fraud Corrupt Organizations
355 Motor Vehicle Product Leave Act
Veterans) 371 Truth in Lending SOCIAL SECURITY
Liability 790 Other Labor Litigation 480 Consumer Credit
153 Recovery of 380 Other Personal Property 861 HIA (1395ff)
360 Other Personal Injury 791 Employee Retirement 490 Cable/Sat TV
Overpayment Damage Income Security Act 862 Black Lung (923) 850 Securities/Commodities/
of Veteran’s Benefits 362 Personal Injury -Medical
Malpractice 385 Property Damage Product 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
160 Stockholders’ Suits Liability IMMIGRATION
864 SSID Title XVI 890 Other Statutory Actions
190 Other Contract 462 Naturalization
CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 865 RSI (405(g)) 891 Agricultural Acts
195 Contract Product Liability Application
440 Other Civil Rights HABEAS CORPUS 893 Environmental Matters
196 Franchise 465 Other Immigration FEDERAL TAX SUITS
441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Actions 895 Freedom of Information
870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or
REAL PROPERTY 442 Employment Act
510 Motions to Vacate Defendant)
210 Land Condemnation Sentence 896 Arbitration
443 Housing/ 871 IRS–Third Party 26 USC
220 Foreclosure Accommodations 530 General § 7609 899 Administrative Procedure
445 Amer. w/Disabilities– Act/Review or Appeal of
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 535 Death Penalty
Employment Agency Decision
240 Torts to Land OTHER
446 Amer. w/Disabilities–Other 950 Constitutionality of State
245 Tort Product Liability 540 Mandamus & Other Statutes
290 All Other Real Property 448 Education
550 Civil Rights
555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee–
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

1 Original 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District (specify) Litigation–Transfer Litigation–Direct File
VI. CAUSE OF Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
8th & 14th Amendment
ACTION
Brief description of cause:
Cruel and Unusual Denial Conditions of Confinement; Deprivation and Disruption of Sleep. Violations of 8th and 14th amendments of U.S. Constitution and Article I, Sections 7 and 17 of the California Constitution, 15 CCR 1065.
VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ 100,000.00 CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, Fed. R. Civ. P. JURY DEMAND: Yes No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S), JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

IF ANY (See instructions):
IX. DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT (Civil Local Rule 3-2)
(Place an “X” in One Box Only) SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND SAN JOSE EUREKA-MCKINLEYVILLE
DATE 05/20/2019 SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD /s/ Yolanda Huang
Print Save As... Reset

JS-CAND 44 (rev. 07/16) Case 4:19-cv-02722-KAW Document 1-1 Filed 05/20/19 Page 2 of 2
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS-CAND 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet. The JS-CAND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and
service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved in its original form by the Judicial
Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the Clerk of Court to initiate the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is
submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I. a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the “defendant” is the location of the tract of land involved.)
c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section “(see attachment).”
II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires that jurisdictions be shown in
pleadings. Place an “X” in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
(1) United States plaintiff. Jurisdiction based on 28 USC §§ 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
(2) United States defendant. When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an “X” in this box.
(3) Federal question. This refers to suits under 28 USC § 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code
takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
(4) Diversity of citizenship. This refers to suits under 28 USC § 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS-CAND 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above.
Mark this section for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Place an “X” in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is
sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than
one nature of suit, select the most definitive.
V. Origin. Place an “X” in one of the six boxes.
(1) Original Proceedings. Cases originating in the United States district courts.
(2) Removed from State Court. Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 USC § 1441. When the
petition for removal is granted, check this box.
(3) Remanded from Appellate Court. Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
(4) Reinstated or Reopened. Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
(5) Transferred from Another District. For cases transferred under Title 28 USC § 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
(6) Multidistrict Litigation Transfer. Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 USC
§ 1407. When this box is checked, do not check (5) above.
(8) Multidistrict Litigation Direct File. Check this box when a multidistrict litigation case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
Please note that there is no Origin Code 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to changes in statute.
VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC § 553. Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service.
VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an “X” in this box if you are filing a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS-CAND 44 is used to identify related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
IX. Divisional Assignment. If the Nature of Suit is under Property Rights or Prisoner Petitions or the matter is a Securities Class Action, leave this
section blank. For all other cases, identify the divisional venue according to Civil Local Rule 3-2: “the county in which a substantial part of the
events or omissions which give rise to the claim occurred or in which a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated.”
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

SF County Jail Inmates Lawsuit

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

SF County Jail Inmates Lawsuit

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Case 4:19-cv-02722-KAW Document 1 Filed 05/20/19 Page 1 of 30

LAW OFFICES OF YOLANDA HUANG

1 d. Whether Defendants’ policies and practices of not permitting prisoners to have a

1 Adequacy: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4)

20 MIYAMOTO’s, JACKSON’s, MCCONNELL’s and DOES 1 to 50’s actions in promulgating their

request relief as outlined below.

21 deprivations under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

13 relevant, as if fully set forth in this Claim.

23 compensatory damages against Defendants SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY, SHERIFF, HENNESSY,

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

20 REQUEST FOR RELIEF

10 during the nighttime sleep hours;

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

VIII. RELATED CASE(S), JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

DATE 05/20/2019 SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD /s/ Yolanda Huang

Print Save As... Reset

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS-CAND 44

S-ar putea să vă placă și