Case: T.R. v. South Carolina Department of Corrections

2005-CP-40-02925 | South Carolina state trial court

Filed Date: June 10, 2005

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On June 10, 2005, inmates suffering from serious mental illness filed this class action lawsuit in the Fifth Circuit Court of South Carolina, a state trial court, against the South Carolina Department of Corrections. The suit alleged that the defendant violated the South Carolina Constitution's ban on "cruel," "corporal" and "unusual punishment" (Art. I § 15) as well as its duty under the South Carolina Constitution to provide basic care for prisoners (Art. XII § 2, a claim that was eventually …

On June 10, 2005, inmates suffering from serious mental illness filed this class action lawsuit in the Fifth Circuit Court of South Carolina, a state trial court, against the South Carolina Department of Corrections. The suit alleged that the defendant violated the South Carolina Constitution's ban on "cruel," "corporal" and "unusual punishment" (Art. I § 15) as well as its duty under the South Carolina Constitution to provide basic care for prisoners (Art. XII § 2, a claim that was eventually dropped). The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief.

Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant failed to properly treat the plaintiffs' mental illnesses by refusing to transfer them to facilities equipped to treat them, only sporadically giving them needed antipsychotic medication, and excessively using solitary confinement. The plaintiffs said that the lack of antipsychotics led patients to horde the medications and increased the risk of suicide and overdose; the plaintiffs also alleged that the defendant’s use of solitary confinement interfered with treatments for mental illnesses.

On November 1, 2007, the Circuit Court (Judge J. Michael Baxley), among other things, certified the case as a class action with the class defined as:

[A]ll individuals who, at any time since June 20, 2005 (the date that Plaintiffs filed their Complaint), have been or will be confined in an institution or facility maintained or operated by the South Carolina Department of Corrections and who, at any time since June 20, 2005, have been or will be: 1) Assigned to an SCDC Intermediate Care Services (“ICS”) unit; or 2) Hospitalized as an inpatient at Gilliam Psychiatric Hospital (“GPH”) or Columbia Care Center (“CCC”); or 3) Diagnosed by a psychiatrist with any of the following mental illnesses: a) Cognitive disorders (e.g., traumatic brain injuries, Cognitive Disorder Not Otherwise Specified); b) Schizophrenia (all subtypes); c) Schizoaffective Disorder (all subtypes); d) Paranoid Disorder (e.g., Delusional Disorders); e) Major Depressive Disorder (all subtypes); f) Bipolar Disorder (all subtypes); g) Other Psychotic Disorders (e.g., Schizophreniform, Psychotic Disorder Not Otherwise Specified); or 4) Diagnosed by a psychiatrist with another mental disorder, not listed above, that has resulted in a significant functional impairment, defined as: a) the inability to attend to and effectively perform the usual or necessary activities of daily living; b) an extreme impairment of coping skills, rendering the patient exceptionally vulnerable to unintentional or intentional victimization and possible mismanagement; or c) behaviors that are bizarre and/or dangerous to self or others.
The Court noted that the class definition tracked others approved in Alexander S. v. McLawhorn and Disability Advocates, Inc. v. New York State Office of Mental Health.

On September 29, 2010, Judge Baxley ruled on the standards that would govern the case. The Court ruled that the standards of Article I, Section 15 of the South Carolina Constitution would be construed consistently with the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments"). The Court held plaintiffs must prove that there is a substantial risk of serious harm and the objective nature of that risk may be proved by deficiencies in the system of administration of the Department of Corrections. To determine if the defendant's system is sufficient the Court considered the following six factors drawn from federal case law:

1. a systematic program for screening and evaluating inmates to identify those in need of mental health care;

2. a treatment program that involves more than segregation and close supervision of mentally ill inmates;

3. employment of a sufficient number of trained mental health professionals;

4. maintenance of accurate, complete, and confidential mental health treatment records;

5. administration of psychotropic medication only with appropriate supervision and periodic evaluation; and

6. a basic program to identify, treat, and supervise inmates at risk for suicide.

The order also explained that Article XII, Section 2 of the South Carolina constitution, which requires the General Assembly to “provide for the . . . health . . . of the inmates,” imposes a duty on the defendants to provide “minimally adequate” mental health services. And, despite noting that “cruel and unusual” and “minimally adequate” are “fundamentally different” concepts, the Court said it “intends generally to rely” on the same six factors to assess the plaintiffs’ Article I and Article XII claims.

The case proceeded to trial over the next four years, during which time the plaintiffs filed several amended complaints. For reasons unknown to the Clearinghouse, the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint, filed June 7, 2011, dropped allegations that the defendants failed to provide minimally adequate health services under Article XII; it retained only the plaintiffs' Article I claims for cruel, corporal, and unusual punishment.

On January 8, 2014, Judge Baxley ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Judge Baxley observed that “[t]his case, far above all others, is the most troubling” of “over 70,000 cases of every imaginable sort” heard in state courts over the previous fourteen years. The Court also criticized the defendants’ decision to “[fight] this case tooth and nail” over eight years rather than “accept the obvious” and “try to improve its mental health system.”

Specifically, the Court found that: [1] the mental health care services were "severely" understaffed and many were unqualified resulting in inadequate screening and delays in care, [2] the plaintiff class was exposed to disproportionate use of force and segregation without approval by psychiatrists through the use of solitary confinement that had caused several deaths, [3] the defendant did not have a complete process for tracking the treatment of mental ill inmates, [4] the defendant's mental health screening process neither identified all mentally ill inmates nor provided treatment for those who were identified, [5] the defendant's administration of psychotropic drugs was inadequately administered and evaluated, and [6] the defendant's crisis prevention system was inadequate and had resulted in the suicide of several prisoners.

To address these problems, the Court ordered the defendant to create a plan to improve mental health care. The Court directed the defendant to (1) develop an effective screening system; (2) develop a comprehensive treatment program that would not rely on segregation; (3) increase the number of mental health professionals; (4) maintain accurate records; (5) supervise and evaluate the use of psychotropic medicine; and (6) identify and treat individuals at risk of suicide.

The defendant filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment on the grounds that the court’s January 8, 2014 decision did not address several of its arguments, including that the plaintiffs lacked standing and did not enjoy a private right of action. Judge Baxley rejected the defendant’s arguments in an April 18 order. The defendant appealed “all pre-trial, trial, and post-trial bench rulings” along with twenty-four specific trial court orders on May 22.

Around the same time, the parties entered mediation, and the appeal was soon stayed. In July, the defendants opened the Self-Injurious Behavioral Unit at the Kirkland Correctional Institution in Columbia. The unit was designed to facilitate faster responses to inmates who feel the need to harm themselves.

On January 15, 2015, following months of mediation, the parties announced that they had agreed to terms for a preliminary remedial plan. Specifically, the plan would phase in $8.7 million in funding over three years (pending legislative approval); called for "significant" modifications to defendants' security policies and procedures; and required the development of an improved staff training curriculum and a more appropriate staff culture.

The parties signed a formal settlement agreement on May 2, 2016. The settlement bound the defendant to comply with hiring, construction, and recordkeeping plans as well as modify its own policies. In addition, the settlement established a panel to supervise the defendant’s implementation of the changes. The settlement was set to terminate once the mediator determined the defendant had substantially complied with the agreement’s terms for eighteen consecutive months, although the defendant agreed to preserve certain policies for two years after termination. The parties appear to have predicted that the agreement would last about four years because they set an “Implementation Target Date” four years in the future.

The parties jointly moved on June 1, 2016, for the approval of the settlement agreement from the South Carolina Supreme Court. The Supreme Court remanded the request to the Circuit Court (Judge Robert E. Hood) for evaluation. Judge Hood found that class members received adequate notice and approved the settlement agreement on September 29, 2016. On December 14, 2016, the Supreme Court granted a motion to vacate the 2014 ruling because the parties had settled.

There have been no further orders from the court since the settlement was signed, possibly because the parties agreed to resolve certain disputes involving the settlement in arbitration. However, one pro se prisoner has filed numerous objections to the settlement and made additional allegations of poor treatment since the settlement went into effect, continuing throughout 2019. Thus, the case appears to be ongoing.

Summary Authors

Brian Kempfer (2/14/2014)

Dan Whitman (4/4/2015)

Averyn Lee (6/10/2019)

Timothy Leake (1/8/2020)



Baxley, J. Michael (South Carolina)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Andrews, Stuart M Jr, (South Carolina)

Attorney for Defendant

Davidson, William Henry II (South Carolina)


Dunlap, Linda (South Carolina)

Jay, Joy C (South Carolina)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse




Jan. 17, 2020

Jan. 17, 2020



Summons and Complaint

June 20, 2005

June 20, 2005




T.R. v. State of South Carolina

Nov. 2, 2007

Nov. 2, 2007



Order Setting Forth Applicable Constitutional Standards

Protection and Advocacy for People with Disablities, Inc v. State of South Carolina

Sept. 29, 2010

Sept. 29, 2010


Combined Site Visit Reports

Protection and Advocacy for People with Disabilities, Inc v. State of South Carolina

No Court

Dec. 30, 2010

Dec. 30, 2010

Monitor/Expert/Receiver Report



Protection and Advocacy for People with Disabilities, Inc v. State of South Carolina

No Court

March 11, 2011

March 11, 2011

Monitor/Expert/Receiver Report


Fifth Amended Complaint

Protection and Advocacy for People with Disabilities, Inc v. South Carolina Department of Corrections

Oct. 6, 2011

Oct. 6, 2011



Order Granting Judgment in Favor of Plaintiffs

T. R. v. South Carolina Department of Corrections

Jan. 8, 2014

Jan. 8, 2014



Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Alter or Amend

April 7, 2014

April 7, 2014


Term Sheet for Settlement Agreement

T.R. v. S.C. Department of Corrections

No Court

Jan. 12, 2015

Jan. 12, 2015

Settlement Agreement



Last updated Aug. 30, 2023, 2:28 p.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: South Carolina

Case Type(s):

Prison Conditions

Special Collection(s):

Solitary confinement

Key Dates

Filing Date: June 10, 2005

Case Ongoing: Yes


Plaintiff Description:

Mentally ill prisoners in the South Carolina Department of Corrections

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted


South Carolina Department of Corrections, State

Defendant Type(s):


Case Details

Causes of Action:

State law

Constitutional Clause(s):

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief


Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Declaratory Judgment

Source of Relief:



Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: 0

Order Duration: 2016 - None

Content of Injunction:

Reasonable Accommodation

Discrimination Prohibition

Develop anti-discrimination policy




Required disclosure




Bathing and hygiene



Classification / placement

Conditions of confinement



Discharge & termination plans

Disciplinary procedures

Failure to supervise

Failure to train


Recreation / Exercise


Restraints : physical

Sanitation / living conditions

Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)

Suicide prevention


Excessive force

Improper treatment of mentally ill suspects

Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:

Commitment procedure


Disciplinary segregation

Protective custody

Solitary confinement/Supermax (conditions or process)

Disability and Disability Rights:

Mental impairment

Brain injury


Intellectual/developmental disability, unspecified

Mental Illness, Unspecified



Disparate Impact

Disparate Treatment


Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)

Medical/Mental Health:

Intellectual/Developmental Disability

Intellectual disability/mental illness dual diagnosis

Mental health care, general

Mental health care, unspecified

Self-injurious behaviors

Suicide prevention

Type of Facility: