Gonzalez v. Ahern

Background

Daniel Gonzalez and other current and former Santa Rita Jail inmates brought a proposed class action against Alameda County, Wellpath Management, Inc., and Aramark Correctional Services LLC. They asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law that allows claims for violations of federal rights by persons acting under state authority, concerning conditions of confinement. The preliminary-injunction motion concerned allegedly inadequate and unsanitary food at the jail.

The plaintiffs alleged that rodents, birds, insects, and animal droppings entered the kitchen; that trays were not reliably cleaned or sealed; and that inmates received food containing foreign objects, animal waste, or other contamination. They also alleged that jail officials refused to accept, process, document, or respond to grievances about these conditions. The requested injunction would have required changes to kitchen sanitation, tray cleaning, food handling, quality controls, menu compliance, portion sizes, and special diets.

The court had previously granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss. As relevant to this order, it dismissed claims concerning the food’s nutritional content but allowed amendment, and the plaintiffs did not add nutritional-content allegations to their operative complaint. At oral argument, they confirmed that they were no longer seeking preliminary relief on that issue.

Legal standard

To obtain a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs had to show a likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without an injunction, that the balance of equities favored them, and that an injunction served the public interest. Alternatively, they had to raise serious questions about the merits, show that the balance of hardships sharply favored them, and establish likely irreparable injury and a public interest in relief. The plaintiffs carried the burden of making this showing.

Because about 85 percent of the plaintiffs and proposed class members were pretrial detainees, the court evaluated the principal conditions claims under the Fourteenth Amendment’s deliberate-indifference standard. That standard required evidence that the defendants intentionally chose the confinement conditions, those conditions created a substantial risk of serious harm, the defendants failed to take reasonable available measures despite an obvious high degree of risk, and that failure caused injury.

Exhaustion of administrative remedies

The County argued that the plaintiffs had not exhausted available administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court explained that prisoners must use available grievance procedures before bringing certain prison-conditions claims, but a procedure is not available when it is a dead end, too unclear for a reasonable prisoner to use, or thwarted by officials.

The court held that the County had not met its burden of showing that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred for failure to exhaust. The complaint alleged specific examples of officials refusing to accept or respond to grievances and failing to document the reported problems. The County had not identified additional administrative remedies that the plaintiffs failed to use.

Preliminary injunction

The court denied preliminary relief because the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success or raised serious questions about success on the merits.

For the pest and vermin allegations, the plaintiffs submitted declarations describing rats, mice, birds, cockroaches, droppings, and other conditions in the kitchen. The County submitted evidence that it used a pest-control service five days a week, maintained traps and rodent stations, monitored pest activity, and used strip doors and bird netting. The County also presented evidence that the kitchen passed an August 2020 environmental-health inspection. The court concluded that, although there was clearly a pest problem, the record did not show that the defendants had failed to put sufficient measures in place. It also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that state law required replacing the kitchen’s plastic strip doors with a solid door, noting that the kitchen had passed inspection and that the cited law required preventing the entrance and harboring of pests, not a particular type of door.

For the food-tray allegations, the plaintiffs submitted evidence that trays sometimes contained old food, were dirty or damaged, or were not properly sealed. Aramark presented evidence of a cleaning process involving scraping, washing, rinsing, sanitizing, inspection, and rewashing when necessary. It also stated that four to twelve people worked in the scullery at a time. County evidence described additional inspections and procedures for removing improperly sealed trays. The court found that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on their claim that Aramark’s tray-cleaning practices were constitutionally deficient.

For the food-contamination allegations, the plaintiffs reported foreign objects, animal waste, wilted produce, and food allegedly left too long in warming ovens. The County and Aramark presented evidence of food-sealing, meal inspections, quick cart unloading, replacement meals, employee training, and procedures for discarding or reprocessing food or trays that fell on the floor. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on their claim that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to their health and safety needs because of food contamination.

The court did not consider nutritional value as a basis for the requested injunction because those claims had previously been dismissed, the plaintiffs had not added new nutritional allegations, and they stated that they were no longer seeking relief on that ground.

Evidentiary objections and hearing request

The court overruled the defendants’ objections to the plaintiffs’ evidence. It found the inmate declarations acceptable because pandemic restrictions made it unreasonable to expect physically signed declarations.

The court denied the plaintiffs’ request for an evidentiary hearing. It agreed that the motion presented factual disputes, but determined that those disputes could not be adequately resolved without discovery and testing of the parties’ evidence. The court noted that discovery could begin on claims that had survived the motions to dismiss, along with any agreed inspections of the premises.

Disposition

The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction and denied the request for an evidentiary hearing. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 71, 92, and 94. It did not finally resolve the underlying conditions-of-confinement claims.