Declaration of Dominique Jackson

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 17-2 Filed 01/31/18 Page 1 of 51
LAW OFFICES OF YOLANDA HUANG

1
YOLANDA HUANG, SBN 104543
2 475 14th Street, Suite 500
Oakland, CA 94612
3 Telephone: (510) 329-2140
Facsimile: (510) 580-9410
4
5 DENNIS CUNNINGHAM, SBN 112910
115A Bartlett St.
6 San Francisco, CA 94110
7 Telephone: 415-285-8091
Facsimile: 415-285-8092
8
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
9
10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
13 JACLYN MOHRBACHER, ERIN ELLIS,
DOMINIQUE JACKSON, CHRISTINA
14 No. 3:18-cv-00050-JD
ZEPEDA, ALEXIS WAH, AND KELSEY
ERWIN, on behalf of themselves and others
15 similarly situated,
DECLARATION OF ELLEN BARRY IN
16 Plaintiffs, SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A
17 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
vs.
18
19 ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, et
al.,
20 Defendants.
21
I, ELLEN BARRY, declare:
22 1. I make this declaration based upon my own true knowledge and if called to testify, I can and
23 will testify as stated herein.
24 2. I have worked with women in United States prisons and jails for over 40 years. Specifically, I
25 founded Legal Services for Prisoners with Children (LSPC), a non-profit legal advocacy
26 organization that has advocated on behalf of incarcerated parents and their children, in 1978
and served as executive director of this organization from 1978 through the end of 2001.
27
During my tenure at LSPC, I served as lead counsel or co-counsel in more than a dozen class
28
action law suits, did extensive legislative and administrative advocacy in federal, state and
Page 1 of 7
Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office 3:18-cv-00050, Dec. Rosa Perez in Support; Motion for Preliminary Injunction
local arenas, and represented thousands of individual incarcerated parents in individual cases
1
in the areas of dependency and foster care, termination of parental rights, divorce,
2
guardianship, immigration, benefits and other civil legal issues. LSPC has pioneered work in
3
a number of areas, including the development of adequate systems of medical care for
4
prisoners and medical treatment for pregnant women prisoners, expansion of alternatives to
5 incarceration for women and their infants, advocacy on behalf of grandparent and relative
6 caregivers, justice for battered women in prison who have defended themselves against their
7 abusers, and treatment of women with substance dependency issues.
8 3. From 2002 through the present, I have consulted on a number of lawsuits, legislative efforts
9 and policy work on behalf of incarcerated parents and their children and have a 40-year career
10 of work in this arena. I have been recognized for my expertise in this work in the following
ways: Through the organization, 1000 PeaceWomen, I was nominated for the Nobel Peace
11
Prize in 2005 and 2008 along with 999 other women activists for peace and justice from
12
around the world. I received a MacArthur Fellowship fellowship for work with women
13
prisoners and their children and families in 1998 and a Soros Senior Justice fellowship for
14
advocacy on behalf of women prisoners and their children in 1997. I was recognized by NYU
15 School of Law as Public Interest Lawyer of the Year in 2014 and California Lawyer of the
16 Year (California Lawyer Magazine) in 1998. I received the State Bar Legal Services Section
17 Lawyer of the Year award (Northern California) in 1991.
18 4. I received my J.D. from NYU School of Law in 1978 and my B.A. from Swarthmore College
19 in 1975. I was a Root-Tilden Public Interest Fellow at NYU as well as a Hays Civil Liberties
20 Fellow. I was admitted to the California Bar in 1978, and have been admitted to practice in
the Northern, Eastern, Southern and Central Districts, United States Federal District Court,
21
California. Since I have worked as a policy expert and expert witness for the past several
22
years, I am currently on inactive states with the California State Bar.
23
5. In 1986, LSPC served as co-counsel, along with attorneys from Public Advocates, in the class
24
action litigation, Vernita Jones, et. al. v. Glenn Dyer, et. al., Alameda County Superior Court
25 Number H-114154-0. The Complaint was filed on February 26, 1986 and the litigation was
26 settled with a comprehensive settlement agreement approved by Judge Jacqueline Taber in
27 1989. I participated in every aspect of the litigation, from filing, through discovery and during
28 the three-year period of monitoring. As class counsel in the Jones litigation, as well as similar
Page 2 of 7
litigation against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Harris v.

1
McCarthy, filed in federal district court, Central District of California, in 1985) and against
2
the Kern County Sheriff’s Department (Yeager v. Smith, filed in United States District Court,
3
Eastern District of California in 1987), I have extensive experience with the process of
4
working with correctional systems to assess and evaluate the adequacy of medical care and
5 treatment of pregnant women in correctional settings. In all three class action lawsuits,
6 plaintiffs established a significant pattern of inadequate medical care for pregnant women
7 prisoners, and in each case, the court approved Settlement Agreements establishing clear
8 guidelines and provisions addressing all aspects of medical care for pregnant and postpartum
9 women in custody.
10 6. I have had the opportunity to review the complaint that has been filed in this litigation,
as well as declarations filed by individual plaintiffs and the Motion for Preliminary
11
Injunction. I am deeply concerned about the nature of Plaintiffs’ allegations with respect to
12
the failure of Defendants to provide adequate medical care, including basic treatment for
13
pregnancy, specialized treatment for high risk pregnancies, nutrition, exercise and physical
14
housing and sanitation for pregnant women in Santa Rita County Jail. Allegations of
15 plaintiffs, pregnant and post-partum women, in the 2018 Complaint are remarkably and
16 unfortunately similar to the allegations included in the 1986 litigation, Jones v. Dyer. Women
17 in the present litigation allege inadequate medical treatment and staff response in situations
18 involving miscarriage and pregnancy complications. Basic sanitation, nutrition and exercise
19 are shockingly inadequate. Treatment of pregnant women with substance dependency issues
20 appears to be similarly deficient. The Jones litigation raised very similar issues, and the
Alameda County Superior Court approved a Settlement Agreement which covered all aspects
21
of adequate medical and related care for pregnant and postpartum women, the same issues
22
raised in the present case.
23
7. Attached as Exhibit A to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the complaint in Vernita
24
Jones, et. al. v. Glenn Dyer, et. al., Alameda County Superior Court Number H-114154-0.
25
Attached as Exhibit B to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the settlement
26 agreement reached in Jones v. Glenn Dyer. As part of the settlement, the Sheriff and Santa
27 Rita Jail agreed to consider alternative community placement because all of us recognized that
28 the inherent system in jail, which by nature is harsh and dehumanizing, would be difficult,
Page 3 of 7
even with the best of intentions, to transform into a place which does a good job of meeting
1
the needs of pregnant women, and of babies in utero. And for those women who were not
2
accepted into alternative community placement, the Sheriff and Santa Rita Jail agreed to
3
adopt specific protocols and check lists so that all of the requirements of the settlement
4
agreement could be met.
5 8. In my expert opinion, from my review of the women’s declarations, it does not appear that
6 Alameda County Sheriff’s Department is providing even the most basic medical care for
7 pregnant women prisoners at Santa Rita, let alone treatment for women who are experiencing
8 high-risk pregnancies. It is clear that the previously developed protocols and checklists are
9 not in place, particularly if women who are bleeding vaginally are not referred for medical
10 care, but are instead placed in isolation and strip searched. The harsh realities in jail are
unconstitutional punishment of a very vulnerable population, namely pregnant women and
11
their unborn children. For this reason, current policy and practice in this area supports the
12
placement of pregnant women and women with newborns in alternative treatment programs in
13
the community when they can receive comprehensive and appropriate medical care, as well as
14
healthy nutrition, appropriate exercise and psychological services that prepare them to have
15 the safest and most healthy birth outcomes. Women confined in squalid conditions, without
16 adequate food, clean clothes and laundry, in severely stressful, noisy and unhealthy
17 environments are very likely to have poor pregnancy outcomes.
18 9. Alameda County has at least six residential treatment programs that provide housing,
19 treatment, support and services to pregnant women, as well as women with newborns,
20 including pregnant women with issues of substance abuse, domestic violence, homelessness
and criminal justice involvement. In my expert opinion, every effort should be made to
21
implement the placement of as many pregnant Plaintiffs in this litigation, as well as
22
postpartum women and their newborns, in appropriate alternatives to incarcerated in Santa
23
Rita County Jail. Despite long standing agreements to clear, defined standards and
24
procedures for the care of pregnant women, Defendants have shown their inability to provide
25 the basics for care of pregnant women under their jurisdiction: prompt, adequate medical
26 care; proper and sufficient nourishment; regular exercise; necessary treatment and services
27 including clean laundry and sanitary food preparation facilities. I urge this Court to explore a
28 remedy in this litigation that not only adopts nationally and internationally agreed upon
Page 4 of 7
standards for the treatment of pregnant and postpartum women in correctional custody, but
1
also adopts the practice of placing pregnant and parenting women and their infants in
2
appropriate and effective residential alternative treatment programs in lieu of incarceration.
3
This remedy will maximize the likelihood that pregnant women in custody will have healthy
4
babies and will, themselves, have healthy pregnancy outcomes and will also provide the most
5 cost-effective and humane plan for the treatment of pregnant women in custody.
6 10. I make this declaration under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California.
7 Executed in Oakland, California.
8
Dated: Jan. 28, 2018 ELLEN BARRY
9
10
11
__/s/ Ellen Barry_________________________
12
13
14 Under N.D. Cal. Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I attest that I obtained concurrence in the filing of this
document from Ellen Barry on January 28, 2018.
15
By: __/s/ Yolanda Huang______________
16 YOLANDA HUANG
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 5 of 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 EXHIBIT A
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 6 of 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 EXHIBIT B
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 7 of 7

Declaration of Dominique Jackson

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Declaration of Dominique Jackson

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 17-2 Filed 01/31/18 Page 1 of 51

LAW OFFICES OF YOLANDA HUANG

litigation against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Harris v.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi