Gonzalez

Gonzalez v. Ahern

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 1, 20213:19-cv-07423California6,368 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

BACKGROUND

20 A. Third Amended Complaint Allegations2 21 Alameda County contracts with Aramark to provide food services at the Jail and other jail 22 facilities. (Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), Dkt. No. 89 at ¶ 55.) The kitchen at the Jail is 23 staffed primarily by prisoners that work under the supervision of Aramark. (Id. at ¶ 60.) In recent

1 All parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Dkt. No. 8, 16, 17, 21, 22, 68..) 2 Plaintiffs labeled their Third Amended Complaint as “Second Amended Complaint,” but they previously filed a Second Amended Complaint on August 31, 2020. (Compare Dkt. No. 89 with Dkt. No. 50.) years, Alameda County and Aramark have overseen a prisoner food budget reduction of 25%— $1.65 million. (Id. at ¶ 56.) These budget reductions have had a devastating effect on the quality and quantity of food at the prison. (Id. at ¶ 57.) Additionally, kitchen workers are not consistently tested for communicable diseases prior to beginning work in the kitchen. (Id. at ¶ 60.) For 4 example, Willie Dudley, a former kitchen worker, was not tested for tuberculosis until…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.