Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of “themselves and the approximately 4,000 incarcerated people who are similarly situated on any given day” to “remedy the dangerous, discriminatory, and unconstitutional conditions in the Jail.” (Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), Doc. No. 81, ¶ 6.)
To this point, the California State Auditor’s February 3, 2022 report found that “the Sheriff’s Department has failed to adequately prevent and respond to the deaths of individuals in its custody.” (Id. ¶ 2 (quoting Doc. No. 119-3 at 44).)
Under Rule 201, the court can take judicial notice of “[p]ublic records and government documents available from reliable sources on the Internet,” such as websites run by governmental agencies.
Plaintiffs allege in their Second Amended Complaint that they are pretrial detainees and do not provide authority for the proposition that the cruel and unusual punishment provision extends to persons other than convicted prisoners.
This criticism is amply justified, as “[e]xperience teaches that, unless cases are pled clearly and precisely, issues are not joined, discovery is not controlled, the trial court’s docket becomes unmanageable, the litigants suffer, and society loses confidence in the court’s ability to administer justice.” Anderson v. Dist.