Women inmates make small gain in fight over prison conditions

A federal judge dismissed most claims by the women, all of whom are housed at San Francisco's only women's facility.SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — A group of women incarcerated in a San Francisco jail successfully pleaded they lack sufficient sunlight and face discriminatory treatment, dodging a motion to dismiss on those claims.However, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer on Friday dismissed all other claims made by the group at the only city jail that can house women.The nine plaintiffs claim in their suit against the city and county of San Francisco, its sheriff’s office, public health department and others that the jail’s conditions fail to meet minimum requirements. They say have no chance to exercise, are given inadequate food served on trays with soap residue, face insect infestations and at times must sleep near lidless toilets filled with feces and urine.The group’s claims include violations of the Eighth and 14th amendments, California Constitution, Bane Civil Rights Act, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress.Only two 14th Amendment claims survived.“The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits all punishment of pretrial detainees,” Breyer, a Bill Clinton appointee, wrote, citing the 2004 Ninth Circuit opinion in Demery v. Arpaio.The plaintiffs’ 14th Amendment claims focus on lack of exercise opportunities and sunlight, as well as inadequate medical care and food. Breyer agreed with them on the issues of sunlight and disparate treatment.They say a lack of sunlight has led to memory loss, insomnia, migraines and other issues. Breyer called that claim sufficient.“Plaintiffs properly allege that there is no nonpunitive justification for such conditions, meaning they can only be explained through ‘deliberate indifference,’” he wrote.Pivoting to the differences — disparate treatment — between men and women at the facility, Breyer noted men could be transferred to another jail, but the women cannot.“Plaintiffs are not challenging gender segregation in jails,” Breyer said, denying the motion to dismiss on this 14th Amendment claim. “They are challenging an inability to receive direct sunlight (or improve their conditions) because of their gender.”All other claims, including other 14th Amendment claims, failed.Pointing to the unsanitary plumbing claim, Breyer said the group didn’t provide enough facts that conditions were severe and ongoing. He said intermittent conditions aren’t a constitutional violation.The inadequate medical care claim failed because the plaintiffs’ argument focused on treatments they believe are better than what the jail’s doctor prescribed.“While alternative treatments for hypertension, diabetes, migraines, anxiety, and allergies undoubtedly exist, plaintiffs have failed to provide facts that the treatment they received plausibly disregarded an excessive risk to the plaintiffs’ health,” Breyer wrote.Concerning the accusation about unsanitary meals, the judge noted the jail contracts with a private corporation to make food. However, the plaintiffs didn’t name that business as a defendant.Turning to the Eighth Amendment claim, Breyer found the plaintiffs are pretrial detainees and can’t make a claim under that amendment, as it applies to only those convicted of crimes. He noted the plaintiffs have said they’re a mixture of pretrial detainees and convicted inmates, though they’re not a certified class and can’t make claims outside the status of pretrial detainees.Breyer also dismissed claims of municipal and individual liability.A successful claim of municipal liability requires a policy that’s deliberately indifferent to a potential constitutional harm, which the group didn’t argue, Breyer found.For individual liability, the group needed to link a supervisor to an action, or inaction, that’s culpable.“Plaintiffs state only in vague terms that officials made housing decisions,” Breyer wrote. “Further, any failure to act argument falls short because a lack of sunlight is not, by itself, a per se constitutional violation.”Attorneys for both sides didn’t respond to requests for comment by press time.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads