On April 4, 1995, women inmates filed a class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California against the governor of California and California prison officials regarding the medical care provided to women prisoners by the California Department of Corrections (DOC) at the Central California Women's Facility (CCWF) in Chowchilla, CA and the California Institution for Women (CIW) in Frontera, CA. On January 12, 1996, the court certified a plaintiff class defined as all persons who suffer from, or are at risk of developing, serious illness or injury, excluding mental disorders, who were or in the future would be confined at CCWF and CIW. The court also certified a subclass defined as those inmates at those facilities who are diagnosed as HIV-positive. Plaintiffs were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union's National Prison Project, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, California Rural Legal Assistance, and private attorneys.

The parties drafted a settlement agreement in August of 1997 and the court (Chief Judge William B. Shubb) approved the settlement and dismissed the case on December 22, 1997. The settlement included provisions regarding the screening of inmates for contagious diseases, privacy of medical information, the institution of a system whereby inmates could confidentially request medical services, the maintenance of emergency medical equipment, and licensing requirements. The Defendants agreed to implement chronic disease guidelines and a new medical records format. The settlement also included provisions for maintaining the confidentiality of inmates who are HIV positive. The parties agreed to appoint an assessor and survey team to determine how well the defendants were complying with the agreements.

On December 29, 1999, defendants requested unconditional dismissal on the ground that they had complied with the terms of the settlement agreement. In an order dated February 3, 2000, the court (Judge Shubb) found that defendants were not in substantial compliance with the settlement so were precluded from moving for unconditional dismissal. Judge Shubb gave the plaintiffs until July 31, 2000 to petition to restore the case to the trial docket or the court would vacate the settlement and set the matter for trial on the merits. Judge Shubb denied plaintiff's request for more time and motion to reopen discovery on August 8, 2000. The court vacated and set aside the settlement agreement and set the matter for trial. Media reports indicate that there was no trial. On August 22, 2000, the court (Judge Shubb) dismissed the case wtih prejudice based on a stipulation of dismissal that had been agreed to by both parties.

Angela Heverling - 04/05/2006


compress summary