BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1106
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 30, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Bob Wieckowski, Chair
AB 1106 (Waldron) - As Amended: March 21, 2013
SUBJECT : PUBLIC ENTITIES: LIABILITY
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD PUBLIC ENTITIES OPERATING COUNTY JAILS BE
IMMUNIZED FROM LIABILITY FOR VIOLATIONS OF CLEARLY ESTABLISHED
LAWS AND STANDARDS PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF INMATES SOLELY
BECAUSE THE VIOLATIONS OCCUR IN COUNTY JAILS INSTEAD OF STATE
PRISONS?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
The implementation of public safety realignment in 2011
transferred the responsibility of housing defendants convicted
of certain non-violent crimes from the state prison system to
county jails. According to the author, realignment now makes
public entities operating county jails responsible for the needs
of both short and long term inmates although county jail
programs were never designed to meet the needs of these long
term inmates, and currently are unprepared to deliver these
services that used to be provided by a state prison. To address
this problem, however, this bill seeks a problematic solution-to
broadly immunize public entities for injuries to inmates arising
out of failure to provide sufficient jail conditions.
With respect to lawsuits seeking money damages for jail
conditions, existing law already sufficiently protects counties
for injuries to inmates. Furthermore, as articulated eloquently
by one opponent, standards and conditions imposed upon state
prisons are relatively low and the result of constitutional,
statutory, and case law requirements which equally apply to
county jails. Opponents, including the ACLU and the Consumer
Attorneys, contend this bill could be interpreted as giving
blanket immunity from liability to operators of county
facilities that otherwise would be bound by such legal
precedents. In addition, the bill would eliminate even general
negligence claims, and appears to permit violations of clearly
established laws and standards solely because they occur in
AB 1106
Page 2
county jails, instead of state prisons. Should this bill be
approved by this Committee, it would then be referred to the
Assembly Public Safety Committee.
SUMMARY : Broadly limits the liability of public entities that
operate county jails for injuries to inmates arising out of
failure to provide sufficient jail conditions. Specifically,
this bill :
1)Provides that a public entity that owns or operates a county
jail or correctional facility constructed prior to October 1,
2011, or an employee thereof, shall not be liable to an
inmate, ward, or prisoner of that county jail or correctional
facility for an injury arising out of the failure of the
facility to comply with standards or conditions imposed upon
state prisons, that does not result in cruel and unusual
punishment, related to, but not limited to, lack of amenities,
activities, dental care, educational curriculum, housing,
medical care, mental health care, population, preventative
health care, religious programs, therapeutic programs, and
work programs.
2)States that the nothing in the above provisions limits the
liability of a public entity or its employee that otherwise
exists for an act of gross negligence.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that, except as otherwise provided by statute, a
public entity is not liable for an injury, whether such injury
arises out of an act or omission of the public entity or a
public employee or any other person. (Government Code Section
815. Unless otherwise noted, all further references are to
this code.)
2)Provides that a public entity is liable for injury proximately
caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public
entity within the scope of his employment if the act or
omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a
cause of action against that employee or his personal
representative. (Section 815.2(a).)
3)Establishes that, except as otherwise provided by statute, a
public entity is not liable for an injury resulting from an
act or omission of an employee of the public entity where the
AB 1106
Page 3
employee is immune from liability. (Section 815.2(b).)
4)Establishes, except as otherwise provided by statute, that a
public employee is not liable for an injury caused by the act
or omission of another person, but that nothing exonerates a
public employee from liability for injury proximately caused
by his own negligent or wrongful act or omission. (Section
820.8.)
5)Provides that a public employee is not liable for injury
caused by his failure to make an inspection, or by reason of
making an inadequate or negligent inspection, of any property,
other than the property of the public entity employing the
public employee, for the purpose of determining whether the
property complies with or violates any enactment or contains
or constitutes a hazard to health or safety. (Section 821.4.)
6)Establishes, except as provided, that a public entity is not
liable for an injury proximately caused by any prisoner, or an
injury to any prisoner. (Government Code Section 844.6.)
7)Establishes, except as provided, that neither a public entity
nor a public employee is liable for failure to provide a
prison, jail or penal or correctional facility or, if such
facility is provided, for failure to provide sufficient
equipment, personnel or facilities therein. (Section 845.2.)
COMMENTS : According to the author, this bill is needed to help
protect counties from lawsuits arising from prisoner claims of
injury because they did not have access to the same programs,
facilities, or conditions available to them in state prison
prior to public safety realignment in 2011. The author states:
Traditionally, an inmate's stay in county jail was
intended to be for a short period of time. County
jails were built and intended to operate and meet only
immediate needs of short term inmates. Realignment now
put a burden on county jails making them responsible
for the needs of both short and long term inmates.
County jail programs were not designed to meet the
needs of these long term inmates and currently are
unprepared to deliver these services provided by a
state prison. AB 1106 will limit liability for
conditions caused by realignment in county jails,
county correctional facilities and their employees.
AB 1106
Page 4
The genesis of this bill thus arises from the implementation of
public safety realignment in 2011, which transferred the
responsibility of housing defendants convicted of certain
non-violent crimes from the state prison system to county jails.
According to the Riverside County Sheriff, "As realignment
continues to send an increasing number of long-term inmates into
county jails, local sheriffs will need the time and resources to
improve their healthcare systems, inmate services and
rehabilitation programs. Counties will need protection from
costly litigation while they make the transition to longer
incarceration periods. AB 1106 will help protect counties
during this transition."
Jail Conditions Litigation is Generally Based on Federal Law
Which Takes Precedence Over State Law, Such As That Proposed
Here. According to the ACLU, most successful litigation
involving jails or prisons seek a federal judicial remedy,
including the appointment of a Receiver, Special Master, or
other court-ordered oversight to ensure that unconstitutional
conditions are abated. (See, e.g. U.S.C. � 3626, outlining
remedies in prison conditions litigation.) Other remedies
include caps on jail or prison population, which may be ordered
by the court or as part of a negotiated disposition. At least
fifteen counties in California are operating under court-ordered
jail population limits.
Because "conditions" litigation is traditionally based on either
federal anti-discrimination legislation or the federal Prison
Litigation Reform Act of 1996, cases involving any of these
federal statutes would immediately give rise to federal court
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC � 1331 (stating "the district
courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions
arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United
States.") Examples of plaintiff's complaints against county
jails provided by the author's office confirm that many of these
cases involve claims alleging Eighth Amendment violations and
other federal claims.
For these reasons, it appears that this bill would have little
impact on shielding counties from the appointment of a health
care receiver or a court-ordered population cap-- the
traditional federal remedies available in these cases-- even
though the bill seeks to immunize public entities for failure to
comply with conditions imposed upon state prisons "related to,
AB 1106
Page 5
but not limited to" dental care, housing, medical care, mental
health care, preventative health care, and population.
Furthermore, as the ACLU notes, the federal Supremacy Clause
(establishing that federal law generally takes precedence over
state law) effectively prohibits state legislation seeking to
vitiate the responsibility of a correctional agency to ensure
prisoners' rights to adequate medical and mental health care,
compliance with the American Disabilities Act or other statutory
and constitutional rights.
With Respect To Lawsuits Seeking Money Damages for Jail
Conditions, Existing Law Already Sufficiently protects counties,
making this bill largely unneeded. If the bill is intended to
shield counties from suits for money damages, rather than
"costly litigation" generally, it still appears also to be
unnecessary because existing state law substantially limits the
right of private plaintiffs from receiving damages from public
entities. For example, Section 815 currently provides that a
public entity is not liable for an injury, whether such injury
arises out of an act or omission of the public entity, or a
public employee, or any other person. In addition, Section
844.6 generally specifically provides that a public entity shall
not be liable for an injury to any prisoner. The fact that most
prison conditions litigation seeks remedies other than money
damages under state law suggests that existing state law
sufficiently protects public entities from liability.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Legal Services for Prisoner with
Children opposes this bill, stating "Under current law,
standards and conditions imposed upon state prisons are
relatively low. In many instances, these requirements are
placed on state prisons as a result of constitutional,
statutory, and case law requirements which equally apply to
county jails. This bill could be interpreted as giving a "pass"
to county facilities which otherwise would be bound by such
legal precedents."
The Consumer Attorneys also oppose this bill, stating:
Challenges facing the current Realignment plan do not
justify denying prisoners access to reasonable medical
and mental health care and should not grant public
entities and their employees immunity for not
providing proper care. In 2011, the Supreme Court
AB 1106
Page 6
found that the conditions in California prisons
violated the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual
punishment and ordered the State to reduce
overcrowding. The immunity provided by AB 1106 would
effectively permit these unconstitutional conditions
in county jails, circumventing the intent of the
Court's ruling - to ensure prisoners retain basic
human rights.
Additionally, AB 1106 immunizes the county from
prisoners' claims that an employee failed to take
reasonable action to summon necessary emergency
medical care. It also would eliminate general
negligence claims. Under this bill, violations of
clearly established laws and standards would be
permitted solely because they occur in county jails,
instead of state prisons. This is a dramatic departure
from existing law and exposes prisoners in county
jails to wanton misconduct and abuse.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
Opposition
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
Consumer Attorneys of California
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Analysis Prepared by : Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334