Dennis Rutherford v. Peter J. Pitchess

710 F.2d 572 Dennis RUTHERFORD, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Peter J. PITCHESS, et al., Defendants-Appellants. No. 81-5461. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Dec. 7, 1982. Decided July 14, 1983. Terry Smerling, American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellees. Frederick R. Bennett, Deputy County Counsel, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants-appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before TANG, SCHROEDER, and POOLE, Circuit Judges. SCHROEDER, Circuit Judge: 1 This is a class action against Los Angeles County officials 1 on behalf of pretrial detainees in the Los Angeles County Central Jail. After trial the district court ordered twelve different changes in jail conditions. The county accepted nine of those changes which covered a variety of problems, including overcrowding, inadequate exercise, lack of clean clothing and telephone access, and insufficient time to eat meals. It appealed the remaining three. 2 In an earlier unpublished memorandum decision, we remanded the case to allow the district court to reconsider the three challenged orders…

This is a class action against Los Angeles County officials 1 on behalf of pretrial detainees in the Los Angeles County Central Jail. After trial the district court ordered twelve different changes in jail conditions. The county accepted nine of those changes which covered a variety of problems, including overcrowding, inadequate exercise, lack of clean clothing and telephone access, and insufficient time to eat meals. It appealed the remaining three.

*574 In an earlier unpublished memorandum decision, we remanded the case to allow the district court to reconsider the three challenged orders in the light of the intervening Supreme Court decision in Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 , 99 S.Ct. 1861 , 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979) (Wolfish). On remand, the district court acknowledged that Wolfish required some differences in analysis, but concluded that it required no difference in result. The court reaffirmed its previous order with respect to all three conditions. The county again appeals.

The challenged orders, which have been stayed pending appeal, require that the jail administrators: (1) allow low-risk detainees who are imprisoned for more than one month to receive one contact visit per…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

Because I believe that the outcome is controlled by Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 , 99 S.Ct. 1861 , 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979) (“ Wolfish ”), I dissent from part III of this opinion, concerning prisoner observation of cell searches. I concur in the remaining portions of the opinion.

The majority seeks to find a distinction between this case and the situation in Wolfish , insofar as both consider the problems posed by cell “shakedowns.” A fair reading of the Supreme Court’s holding in Wolfish would not permit a distinction as to the meaning to be drawn. In Wolfish,. the prison officials established a policy which did not permit prisoners to observe the searches of their cells, citing security concerns and a fear that the prisoners would be able to evade or frustrate the searches. Id. at 555 , 99 S.Ct. at 1882 . The prisoners objected because they suspected the guards of theft. Id. at 556 , 99 S.Ct. at 1883 . In the present case, the identical policy had been adopted by the jail officials, citing the same security and evasion concerns; the prisoners object essentially because they fear the improper confiscation of their property.

Faced with…