Case: Loya v. Board of County Commissioners

4:91-cv-00216 | U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho

Filed Date: June 3, 1991

Closed Date: 1993

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On June 3, 1991, inmates of the Bannock County Jail in Pocatello, Idaho, representing all present and future inmates, filed a class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, against jail and county officials, alleging that the conditions at the jail violated the First, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The inmates were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union. The inmates moved for partial summary judgment on the issues of over…

On June 3, 1991, inmates of the Bannock County Jail in Pocatello, Idaho, representing all present and future inmates, filed a class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, against jail and county officials, alleging that the conditions at the jail violated the First, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The inmates were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union. The inmates moved for partial summary judgment on the issues of overcrowding, inadequate staffing, inadequate recreation, inadequate lighting, and inadequate plumbing. On April 15, 1992, the court (Magistrate Judge Mikel H. Williams) certified the class. On May 4, 1992, the court (Magistrate Williams) found that the jail was unconstitutionally overcrowded, and that the lighting and plumbing was unconstitutionally inadequate. Loya v. The Board of County Comm. Of Bannock County, Idaho, No. CV91-216-E-MHW, 1992 WL 176131 (D. Idaho May 4, 1992). The court ordered the defendants to place a maximum population cap on the jail of 40 prisoners, except in emergency situations where an additional 5 prisoners would be allowed for no more than 72 hours. The court also ordered the defendants to obtain a plumbing and electrical report within 30 days and to repair the deficiencies within a short time following the report. Because of the order to decrease the jail population, the court did not determine the constitutionality of the staffing and recreation claims, but rather ordered the defendants to report to the court within 60 days of the decrease in population, whether staffing and recreation facilities would be adequate after the decrease. On December 18, 1992, the court (Magistrate Williams) granted the inmates' motion for additional relief. The court ordered the defendants to complete the hiring process for new staff by March 1, 1993, to establish an indoor recreation area, and to offer all inmates indoor or outdoor recreation for at least one hour per day, six days per week. On June 24, 1993, the court (Magistrate Williams) entered a stipulated order of dismissal of plaintiff's claims with prejudice, subject to the terms of a consent decree (which unfortunately we do not have).

Summary Authors

Jaclyn Adams (3/17/2006)

People


Judge(s)

Williams, Mikel H. (Idaho)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Pevar, Stephen L. (Colorado)

Stanzak, Joseph S. (Idaho)

Attorney for Defendant

Sasser, David (Idaho)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Documents in this case

4:91-cv-00216

Docket (PACER)

June 24, 1993

June 24, 1993

Docket
37

4:91-cv-00216

Opinion & Order

May 4, 1992

May 4, 1992

Order/Opinion

1992 WL 176131

Docket

Last updated March 24, 2025, 8:33 a.m.

ECF Number Date Description Link
1 June 3, 1991

COMPLAINT - Summons(es) issued/consent sent (mn) (Entered: 06/11/1991)

PACER
2 June 13, 1991

ORDER OF REFERENCE by Honorable Edward J. Lodge : Case referred to Magistrate Mikel H. Williams for all pretrial matters. (cc: all counsel) (mn) (Entered: 06/17/1991)

PACER
3 July 25, 1991

MOTION by plaintiff Lance Loya, plaintiff Casey Cuttler for entry of order appointing impartial expert witnesses (mn) (Entered: 07/26/1991)

PACER
4 July 25, 1991

BRIEF by plaintiff Lance Loya, plaintiff Casey Cuttler in support re: motion for entry of order appointing impartial expert witnesses [3-1] (mn) (Entered: 07/26/1991)

PACER
5 July 25, 1991

MOTION by plaintiff Lance Loya, plaintiff Casey Cuttler to certify class action (mn) (Entered: 07/26/1991)

PACER
6 July 25, 1991

BRIEF by plaintiff Lance Loya, plaintiff Casey Cuttler in support re: motion to certify class action [5-1] (mn) (Entered: 07/26/1991)

PACER
7 Aug. 6, 1991

MOTION by defendant Bannock Cty Commr, defendant William Lynn to extend time to respond to complaint referred to Magistrate Mikel H. Williams (mn) (Entered: 08/07/1991)

PACER
8 Aug. 6, 1991

NOTICE by defendant Bannock Cty Commr, defendant William Lynn of non-objection tomotion for class certification (mn) (Entered: 08/07/1991)

PACER
9 Aug. 9, 1991

ORDER by Magistrate Mikel H. Williams granting referral motion to extend time to respond to complaint and respond to plfs' motion for appointment of expert witnesss to 8/20/91 referred to Magistrate Mikel H. Williams [7-1] (cc: all counsel) (mn) (Entered: 08/12/1991)

PACER
10 Aug. 20, 1991

ANSWER by defendant Bannock Cty Commr, defendant William Lynn; jury demand (mn) (Entered: 08/21/1991)

PACER
11 Aug. 20, 1991

MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION by defendant Bannock Cty Commr, defendant William Lynn to motion for entry of order appointing impartial expert witnesses [3-1] (mn) (Entered: 08/21/1991)

PACER
12 Sept. 3, 1991

MOTION by plaintiff Lance Loya, plaintiff Casey Cuttler for order to show cause and plfs respectfully request that the documents previously filed re te appointment of expert witnesses be incorporated herein by reference to this motion (mn) (Entered: 09/04/1991)

PACER
13 Sept. 3, 1991

REPLY by plaintiff Lance Loya, plaintiff Casey Cuttler to response to motion for entry of order appointing impartial expert witnesses [3-1] (mn) (Entered: 09/04/1991)

PACER
14 Sept. 5, 1991

NOTICE OF HEARING setting hearing on motion for order to show cause and plfs respectfully request that the documents previously filed re te appointment of expert witnesses be incorporated herein by reference to this motion [12-1] 10:00 9/10/91 before (MHW) via telephone (cc: all counsel) (mn) (Entered: 09/09/1991)

PACER
16 Sept. 10, 1991

MINUTES OF HEAR ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - (EJL)(see status order #15) (mn) (Entered: 09/13/1991)

PACER
15 Sept. 11, 1991

STATUS CONFERENCE ORDER by Magistrate Mikel H. Williams ; Discovery ddl 1/10/92 ; Dispositive Motion ddl 2/11/92 ; Jury Trial (5 days) 6/15/92 1:30 before Judge Lodge in Pocatello, ID ; OSC hearing of 9/10/91 continued to 9/25/91 3:30 via telephone ; Case Mgmt ddl-plff shall submit a stipulated draft order on the motion for class certification to the Court by 9/20/91 (cc: all counsel) (mn) (Entered: 09/13/1991)

PACER
17 Sept. 25, 1991

MINUTES OF HEAR ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - taking under advisement on the motion for order to show cause and plfs respectfully request that the documents previously filed re te appointment of expert witnesses be incorporated herein by reference to this motion and parties to submit order for Court to sign re; expert witness [12-1] (MHW) (mn) (Entered: 09/26/1991)

PACER
18 Nov. 13, 1991

STIPULATION that the deposition of plf Lance Loya be taken at the ISCI on 12/5/91 and/or 12/6/91 (mn) (Entered: 11/15/1991)

PACER
19 Nov. 19, 1991

ORDER by Magistrate Mikel H. Williams granting stipulation that the deposition of plf Lance Loya be taken at the ISCI on 12/5/91 at 2:00 p.m. and/or 12/6/91 at 10:00a.m. [18-1] (cc: all counsel) (mn)

PACER
20 Nov. 25, 1991

STIPULATED MOTION by plaintiff Lance Loya, plaintiff Casey Cuttler to vacate status conference and pending mo order (mn) (Entered: 11/26/1991)

PACER
21 Dec. 2, 1991

AMENDED STATUS CONFERENCE ORDER by Magistrate Mikel H. Williams ; Discovery ddl 2/24/92 ; Dispositive Motion ddl 2/24/92 (cc: all counsel) (jb) (Entered: 12/03/1991)

PACER
Dec. 4, 1991

MEMO TO FILE by Kathleen Butterfield - after telephone status conference re Heartfelt v. Blaine County, civ 91-004, parties discussed issues in case #91-216J and desire to file cross motions for S. J. and that a trial would probably not be necessary; plf will submit his motion for S. J. by 3/1/92 and than dft will file his-request hearing in April of 1992 on cross motions; parties will stipulate to remaining issues by the end of January and will submit stipulated motion to vacate the current trial date (mn) (Entered: 12/11/1991)

PACER
22 Dec. 6, 1991

STIPULATION that Raymond Leidig, M. D. will be appointed by the Court as an expert witness; that parties agree to equally split all costs related to Dr. Leidig's services; each has agreed to be responsible for all costs related to other experts hired previously and to defer retention of any other experts. See document for further details. (gl) (Entered: 12/09/1991)

PACER
23 Dec. 10, 1991

ORDER by Magistrate Mikel H. Williams granting stipulation that Raymond Leidig, M. D. will be appointed by the Court as an expert witness; that parties agree to equally split all costs related to Dr. Leidig's services; each has agreed to be responsible for all costs related to other experts hired previously and to defer retention of any other experts. See document for further details. [22-1] (cc: all counsel) (mn) (Entered: 12/11/1991)

PACER
24 Dec. 30, 1991

CONSENT TO PROCEED BEFORE MAGISTRATE AND ORDER OF REFERENCE by Honorable Edward J. Lodge assigning case to Magistrate Mikel H. Williams (cc: all counsel) (mn)

PACER
25 Dec. 30, 1991

RETURN OF SERVICE/PROCESS executed upon defendant Bannock Cty Commr on 6/11/91 (gl) (Entered: 12/31/1991)

PACER
26 Dec. 30, 1991

RETURN OF SERVICE/PROCESS executed upon defendant William Lynn on 6/11/91 (gl) (Entered: 12/31/1991)

PACER
27 Feb. 20, 1992

STIPULATION to amend status conference order (mn) (Entered: 02/24/1992)

PACER
28 Feb. 25, 1992

MOTION by plaintiff for summary judgment (gl) (Entered: 02/27/1992)

PACER
Feb. 25, 1992

LODGED: brief in support re: motion for summary judgment [28-1] (brief is over 20 pages in length - counsel will submit a motion and proposed order to file brief) (gl) (Entered: 02/27/1992)

PACER
29 Feb. 28, 1992

ORDER by Magistrate Mikel H. Williams re [15-1] ; Teleconf scheduled 4/13/92 at 10:00am ; Discovery ddl vacated ; Motion Filing ddl vacated ; Jury trial set 6/15/92 is vacated ; OSC hearing heard on 9/25/91 ; Case Mgmt ddl vacated; defendants shall submit response with briefs to plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment by 3/16/92; plaintiffs shall submit their reply brief on 3/31/92; Parties have 90 days from the date the Court rules on plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment to pursue settlement; if matter is unresolved by that date a status conference will be conducted for Court to determine status of case and enter such orders as the Court deems appropriate (cc: all counsel) (gl) (Entered: 03/04/1992)

PACER
March 4, 1992

LODGED: Deposition of Cynthia Halm (gl) (Entered: 03/06/1992)

PACER
March 4, 1992

LODGED: Deposition of William Lynn (gl) (Entered: 03/06/1992)

PACER
30 March 6, 1992

MOTION by plaintiff to exceed briefing page limit and file over-length brief (gl) (Entered: 03/09/1992)

PACER
31 March 16, 1992

REPLY by defendant Bannock Cty Commr, defendant William Lynn to response to motion for summary judgment [28-1] (mn) (Entered: 03/17/1992)

PACER
32 March 16, 1992

AFFIDAVIT of Alfred I. Murphy regarding motion reply [31-1] (mn) (Entered: 03/17/1992)

PACER
33 March 30, 1992

REPLY BRIEF by plaintiff to motion for summary judgment [28-1] (gl) (Entered: 04/01/1992)

PACER
30 April 13, 1992

ORDER by Magistrate Mikel H. Williams granting motion to exceed briefing page limit and file over-length brief [30-1] (cc: all counsel) (gl)

PACER
34 April 13, 1992

BRIEF by plaintiff in support re: motion for summary judgment [28-1] (gl)

PACER
35 April 13, 1992

MINUTES OF HEARING ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT - taking under advisement on 4/13/92 the motion for summary judgment [28-1] MHW (gl) (Entered: 04/15/1992)

PACER
36 April 15, 1992

ORDER by Magistrate Mikel H. Williams granting motion to certify class action [5-1] (cc: all counsel) (gl) (Entered: 04/17/1992)

PACER
37 May 4, 1992

ORDER by Magistrate Mikel H. Williams granting motion for summary judgment [28-1]; That defendants are allowed 60 days from date of this order to reduce the inmate population in Bannock County jail to a maximum of 40 inmates; after this date no more than 40 inmates can be housed in that jail at any time; with one exception: in emergency situations an additional five prisoners will be allowed for no more than 72 hours. Defendants shall report to this Court within 30 days from the date of this Order on the method to be used to accomplish this reduction. Defendants have 30 days to obtain electrical and pllumbing inspections and to provide a written report to the Court detailing repairs. Defendants be allowed 60 days from and after the date the inmate population is reduced to 40 inmates to conduct their operations at present staffing levels. During this 60 day period, the jail staff will be prohibited from conducting any duties outside of and unrelated to the operation of the jail; thereby allowing defendants 60 days to determine if the existing staff can perform all functions essential to the proper management of the Bannock County jail; at the end of the 60 days the defendants will provide a report to the Court regarding staffing needs. That defendants be allowed 60 days from the date upon which the inmate population is reduced to 40 inmates within which to continue providing recreational facilities, during that time defendants will evaluate the adequacy of such services in light of the reduced inmate population, at the end of the 60 day period, defendants will provide a report to the Court and counsel regarding their findings regarding improvements necessary to provide exercise and recreational opportunities that will protect the inmates' health and welfare, at that time the Court will issue additional orders it deems appropriate with regard to recreational facilities. (cc: all counsel) (gl) (Entered: 05/05/1992)

PACER
38 June 5, 1992

COMPLIANCE PROPOSAL by defendant Bannock Cty Commr, defendant William Lynn in support of Order of this Court of 5/4/92 (gl) (Entered: 06/11/1992)

PACER
39 July 9, 1992

STIPULATION regarding dfts' use of downstairs holding cells (mn) (Entered: 07/13/1992)

PACER
40 July 13, 1992

ORDER by Magistrate Mikel H. Williams granting stipulation regarding dfts' use of downstairs holding cells subject to the conditions listed in the order [39-1] (cc: all counsel) (gl)

PACER
41 Nov. 5, 1992

STATUS REPORT by dft (wm) (Entered: 11/09/1992)

PACER
42 Nov. 16, 1992

MOTION by plaintiff for additional relief in addition to relief granted in 5/4/92 order (37-1) (jl)

PACER
43 Nov. 30, 1992

RESPONSE by dft to plas motion for additional relief [42-1] (wm) (Entered: 12/01/1992)

PACER
44 Dec. 16, 1992

SUPPLEMENTAL STATUS REPORT AND STIPULATED RESOLUTION re motion for additional relief [42-1] (gl) (Entered: 12/17/1992)

PACER
45 Dec. 18, 1992

ORDER by Magistrate Mikel H. Williams granting motion for additional relief [42-1] that defendants have to 3/1/93 to complete the hiring process and have additional personnel in-service (see document); that by 12/31/92 defendants will remove beds from cell no. 9 and establish indoor recreation area; all inmates will be offered access to indoor or outdoor recreation for a minimum of one hour a day at least 6 days a week; that defendants may separate the four inmates presently housed in cell no. 9 and house them in cell no's 1-8, still allowing defendants to house a total of 40 inmates in the second floor housing area of the existing Bannock County Jail(cc: all counsel) (gl) (Entered: 12/23/1992)

PACER
46 Dec. 18, 1992

AMENDED SUPPLEMENTAL STATUS REPORT by pla and dft and stipulated resolution of plas motion for additional relief (wm) (Entered: 12/31/1992)

PACER
47 March 30, 1993

STIPULATION re: notice to inmates of proposed consent decree, order and judgment (with attached notice to inmates signed by Magistrate Williams) (jl) (Entered: 03/31/1993)

PACER
49 June 24, 1993

STIPULATION for dismissal w/prejudice all plas' claims, subject to terms of consent decree order and judgment (jl)

PACER
50 June 24, 1993

CONSENT DECREE, ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL W/PREJUDICE by Magistrate Mikel H. Williams granting stipulation for dismissal w/prejudice all plas' claims, subject to terms of consent decree order and judgment dismissing case (cc: all counsel) (jl) (Entered: 06/29/1993)

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory:

Idaho

Case Type(s):

Jail Conditions

Key Dates

Filing Date: June 3, 1991

Closing Date: 1993

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

inmates of the Bannock County Jail in Pocatello, Idaho, representing all present and future inmates

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: Unknown

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

County

Bannock County Commission

Facility Type(s):

Government-run

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Due Process

Freedom of speech/association

Other Dockets:

District of Idaho 4:91-cv-00216

Available Documents:

Any published opinion

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed

Relief Granted:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Issues

General/Misc.:

Sanitation / living conditions

Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)

Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:

Crowding (General)

Crowding: Pre-PLRA Population Cap

Recreation / Exercise

Recommended Citation