Case: United States v. Strickland

2:08-cv-00475 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio

Filed Date: May 16, 2008

Closed Date: 2015

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On May 16, 2008, the Attorney General, on behalf of the United States, filed suit against the state of Ohio, its governor, the director of youth services, and the superintendents of its juvenile correctional facilities pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 14141 for an alleged pattern or practice of violating the rights of juvenile detainees under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq…

On May 16, 2008, the Attorney General, on behalf of the United States, filed suit against the state of Ohio, its governor, the director of youth services, and the superintendents of its juvenile correctional facilities pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 14141 for an alleged pattern or practice of violating the rights of juvenile detainees under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq.

The United States alleged that Ohio failed to protect the youth at its facilities from harm and undue risk of harm, failed to meet their medical and mental health needs, and failed to provide adequate special education services. The alleged harm and undue risk included unwarranted use of force and seclusion, and inadequate grievance and investigation procedures, while the alleged inadequacies of the health and education services were more total and included lack of dental care, and inadequate intake, screening, and treatment.

The facilities sued were Circleville Youth Center, Cuyahoga Hills Boys School, Indian River School, Marion Juvenile Correctional Center, Mohican Youth Center, Ohio River Valley Youth Center, Scioto Juvenile Correctional Center, and the Freedom Center. The suit was filed as a result of Department of Justice (DOJ) investigations into the conditions of confinement at the Scioto and Marion centers that began in 2005.

On June 12, 2008 in accordance with a joint motion of the parties, the court (Judge Algenon L. Marbley) ordered the entry of a stipulation to injunctive relief for the Scioto and Marion centers and conditionally dismissed the claims against the other facilities. The other facilities were already under a stipulated injunction from the related case S.H. v. Stickrath, linked below so the claims were dismissed on the condition that the United States have access to all relevant Ohio Department of Youth Services (ODYS) policies and the monitor from the Stickrath. The Independent Fact Finder's 214-page report from that case contains useful background for the issues in this case. The Court entered the Stipulation for Injunctive Relief on June 24, 2008.

The injunction required Ohio to develop a wide variety of policies, procedures and practices to remedy the undue harm, inadequate medical and mental health care access, and inadequate special education services to which it subjected the juveniles detained in its facilities. In addition, the injunction appointed a monitor, Fred Cohen, to conduct investigations and report periodically on the state's compliance and required the state to train its employees, develop any additional documents or forms necessary to comply with the injunction, and to create and collect data to assess its performance. The terms of the injunction also guaranteed the Department of Justice access to the youth and staff at the Scioto and Marion centers and to all relevant records. Ohio had one year to revise its policies, training materials, and assessment tools so as to comply with the injunction, which was to last for three years or terminate early upon a showing of a year of substantial compliance.

Monitor Fred Cohen, who had acted as the monitor for both the S.H. case and this case, resigned from monitoring duties only for this case on September 24, 2009. On December 15, 2009, the Court approved modification of the stipulation to provide a new monitoring scheme in which the DOJ acted as monitor through a team of experts. The modification also recognized that the injunction ceased to apply to the Marion facility, which had been closed.

On February 26, 2010, the court ordered ODYS to develop a new meal policy that would ensure that it fed the juveniles committed to the facilities. ODYS had promulgated a protocol that said that youth who refused to go to the cafeteria would not receive a meal. It was applied inconsistently and appeared to deny food to those who refused out of fear. The issue led to a show cause hearing because of discrepancies in the summaries and data provided to the court and to a subsequent order to submit a new policy.

By the consent of the parties, the court amended the injunction on June 6, 2011, to remove many provisions. The monitoring section was redone, and the DOJ relinquished that role to a team of experts. Most notable was that the 3-year expiration clause was removed, making the injunction terminable only on a showing of substantial compliance for two reporting periods. The court adopted a revised version of the injunction that reflected the two amendments in a single document on June 28, 2011.

On January 18, 2013, as a result of problems with the Progress Unit indicated in the Monitor's Third Report, the parties entered into a consent order that laid out a series of requirements meant to ensure that youth on the Progress Unit are not subjected excessive seclusion, that they receive structured programming, that they be screened to ensure they were not sent to the unit for symptoms of mental illness, and that they be given treatment plans that include reasonable goals designed to enable them to leave the unit. The order would be terminated only upon a showing of substantial compliance for six months.

The Monitor's Fourth Report and the First Status Report on Progress Unit were completed in 2013 and included an evaluation of the Scioto Facility. Both reports stated that Ohio was not in substantial compliance with the respective injunctions.

As a result of the State's inability to comply with the consent order, on March 12, 2014 the Department of Justice moved to supplement its original complaint by also including the state's use of unlawful seclusion at all of its juvenile correctional facilities. The court approved this motion on March 28, 2014 and DOJ filed a supplemental complaint on March 31, 2014. At the time that DOJ filed its supplemental complaint, it also sought a temporary restraining order to stem the state's seclusion of juveniles with mental health disorders.

The Department of Justice announced a final agreement with the State of Ohio on Wednesday, May 21, 2014. While Ohio was working to eventually eliminate disciplinary seclusion of youth, this agreement included interim measures that would taken to ensure that seclusion only occurred under certain conditions and for a limited duration. The state also agreed to reduce the potential harms caused by seclusion by increasing access to therapeutic, educational and recreational services while a young person is in seclusion.

On Feb. 11, 2015, the monitoring Correctional Institution Inspection Committee, issued a report showing a dramatic decline in use of seclusion.

The court-appointed monitors submitted final reports in 2015, establishing that the defendant had achieved substantial compliance with the agreement's provisions. The report on the DYS facilities for boys was submitted June 10, 2015, and the report on the DYS-contracted facilities for girls was submitted on November 30, 2015. The monitors submitted their final status report, "The Ohio Model: A Report on the Transformational Reform of the Ohio Department of Youth Services, 2007-2015," on December 7, 2015. The report documented improvements including recording and review of uses of force; a meaningful grievance system; abolition of disciplinary seclusion and dramatic reductions in pre-hearing seclusion; educational programming; increased family visitation; improved mental health treatment; and reduction of the incarcerated population.

On December 3, 2015, the parties made a joint motion to terminate the consent decree. The consent decree was terminated on December 9, 2015, and the case is now closed.

 

Summary Authors

Kenneth Gray (6/28/2013)

Megan Richardson (6/15/2014)

Sarah McDonald (8/5/2018)

Related Cases

S.H. v. Stickrath, Southern District of Ohio (2004)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4932820/parties/united-states-v-strickland/


Judge(s)

Abel, Mark R. (Ohio)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Becker, Grace Chung (District of Columbia)

Branch, Jennifer Lynn (Ohio)

Attorney for Defendant

Anger, Thomas (Ohio)

Arbogast, Janet R (Ohio)

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:08-cv-00475

Docket [PACER]

Dec. 9, 2015

Dec. 9, 2015

Docket
74-3

2:08-cv-00475

Findings Letter: Investigation of Scioto Juvenile Correctional Facility

U.S. v. Strickland

May 9, 2007

May 9, 2007

Findings Letter/Report

2:08-cv-00475

Findings Letter: Investigation of the Marion Juvenile Correctional Facility

U.S. v. Strickland

No Court

May 9, 2007

May 9, 2007

Findings Letter/Report
2

2:08-cv-00475

Complaint

The United States of America v. State of Ohio

May 16, 2008

May 16, 2008

Complaint
6

2:08-cv-00475

Joint Motion and [Proposed] Order for Entry of Stipulation and for Conditional Dismissal of Complaint

The United States of America v. The State of Ohio

June 5, 2008

June 5, 2008

Order/Opinion
6

2:08-cv-00475

Joint Motion and [Proposed] Order for Entry of Stipulation and For Conditional Dismissal of Complaint

U.S. v. Ohio

June 5, 2008

June 5, 2008

Settlement Agreement
8

2:08-cv-00475

Stipulation for Injunctive Relief

United States of America v. The State of Ohio

June 24, 2008

June 24, 2008

Order/Opinion
23

2:08-cv-00475

Proposed Modifications to the Stipulation for Injunctive Relief in U.S.A. v. Ohio

The United States of America v. The State of Ohio

Nov. 23, 2009

Nov. 23, 2009

Order/Opinion
30

2:08-cv-00475

Order

United States of America v. The State of Ohio

Feb. 26, 2010

Feb. 26, 2010

Order/Opinion
42

2:08-cv-00475

Order

United States of America v. The State of Ohio

June 4, 2010

June 4, 2010

Order/Opinion

2010 WL 2246330

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4932820/united-states-v-strickland/

Last updated Feb. 4, 2025, 9:06 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
27

ORDER ADOPTING Proposed Modifications to the Stipulation for Injunctive Relief 23 Notice Directing Monthly Payments be made from Prison Account of, ORDER re 23 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) filed by Dion Norman, The State of Ohio, Thomas Stickrath, Fred Nelson, Katie Needham, Ted Strickland, Marci Sutherland, Chris Money, Larry Gongwer, Ohio Department of Youth Services, Thomas Teague, Beth Oprisch. Signed by Judge Algenon L. Marbley on 12/15/2009. (cw)

Dec. 15, 2009

Dec. 15, 2009

RECAP
154

Order AND ~Util - Set Hearings

May 7, 2015

May 7, 2015

PACER
155

Status Report

June 16, 2015

June 16, 2015

PACER
156

~Util - Set Deadlines/Hearings AND Order

June 17, 2015

June 17, 2015

PACER
157

Order AND ~Util - Set Deadlines/Hearings

Nov. 5, 2015

Nov. 5, 2015

PACER
158

Miscellaneous Relief

Dec. 3, 2015

Dec. 3, 2015

PACER
159

Status Report

Dec. 7, 2015

Dec. 7, 2015

PACER
160

Status Report

Dec. 8, 2015

Dec. 8, 2015

PACER
161

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

Dec. 9, 2015

Dec. 9, 2015

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Ohio

Case Type(s):

Juvenile Institution

Special Collection(s):

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: May 16, 2008

Closing Date: 2015

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

The Attorney General on behalf of the United States

Plaintiff Type(s):

U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Ohio, State

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Facility Type(s):

Government-run

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Indv. w/ Disab. Educ. Act (IDEA), Educ. of All Handcpd. Children Act , 20 U.S.C. § 1400

Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701

Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act, 34 U.S.C. § 12601 (previously 42 U.S.C. § 14141)

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Findings Letter/Report

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Content of Injunction:

Hire

Implement complaint/dispute resolution process

Reporting

Monitor/Master

Recordkeeping

Monitoring

Order Duration: 2008 - 2015

Issues