Armstrong was filed in federal court in San Francisco in 1994 on behalf of a class of disabled prisoners incarcerated in state prisons. In a spare 14-page complaint, the prisoners alleged that the state of California violated the Americans With Disabilities Act, by, among other things, denying them equal access to programs and facilities and by failing to make reasonable accommodations for their disabilities.
The court docket reflects that there have been more than 3,400 pleadings, stipulations, orders, reports and other filings in the trial court in the 29 years since the initial filing, and at least 10 trips to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
The trial court found that the prisoners had been denied their rights under the ADA and ordered defendants to produce a remedial plan to correct the violations. After numerous hearings and several appeals, the court approved the plan in January of 2001 and in March of that year enjoined the defendants to implement it.
The injunction did not end the litigation. Over the years, the trial court modified and refined the injunction when the state was shown to have violated its terms.
On Thursday, a unanimous panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed, in great part, two 2020 orders of the district court that required the state to develop plans to remedy ongoing violations of earlier court orders.
The plans required, among eight specific remedies, the use of fixed surveillance cameras and body-worn cameras in six state prisons.