Case: JD v. Nagin

2:07-cv-09755 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

Filed Date: Dec. 21, 2007

Closed Date: 2014

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On December 21, 2007, juvenile detainees filed a class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against the City of New Orleans. Plaintiffs alleged that the Youth Study Center (YSC), run by the City, did not provide adequate nutrition, discriminated against disabled youth, excessively confined youth, failed to provide medical care, failed to provide educational services, and unlawfully restricted access to courts and to family visitation. Plaintiffs argue tha…

On December 21, 2007, juvenile detainees filed a class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against the City of New Orleans. Plaintiffs alleged that the Youth Study Center (YSC), run by the City, did not provide adequate nutrition, discriminated against disabled youth, excessively confined youth, failed to provide medical care, failed to provide educational services, and unlawfully restricted access to courts and to family visitation. Plaintiffs argue that in doing so, the City violated the Due Process and Cruel and Unusual Punishment clauses, as well as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the American Disabilities Act, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and attorney fees.

After litigation began, the City further restricted access by plaintiffs' counsel to youth in the YSC, where children were being detained. However, on March 4, 2008, the Court (Ivan L.R. Lemelle) granted plaintiffs' motion to access other potential members of the class. Months later, the Court granted plaintiffs' motions to join additional plaintiffs, and on February 6, 2009, plaintiffs' motion to certify class was granted. 255 F.R.D. 406. In June and August of 2008, the Court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss. 2008 WL 2522127. The defendants also moved the Court to sanction plaintiffs' counsel, alleging that they violated a Court order by asking the youth questions during a visit to the YSC after the Court issued an order prohibiting expert inspections, but the Court denied the motion, holding that the violation was not "willful" disobedience of "specific and definite" instructions. 2009 WL 363456.

The parties eventually settled, and on February 12, 2010, the Court signed two consent decrees - one for the education claims, and one for the confinement conditions claims. The decrees required the parties to each retain consultants with expertise in juvenile detention educational services to monitor the YSC, and that the YSC improve building safety, food service, provide more health care for physical and mental conditions, reduce hours of continuous confinement, train staff, implement new grievance policies for detained youth, and to improve educational services and equipment for detained youth. The decree set February 11, 2012 as the target date for compliance. However, after numerous monitoring reports indicated that much progress was needed to reach full compliance, the Court granted multiple motions modifying both decrees to allow extensions of the Court's jurisdiction. On January 17, 2013, the Court granted a joint motion to dismiss the Conditions of Confinement Consent Decree on the condition that a new YSC facility be finished by April 1, 2014. (The case was subject to reinstatement on motion by a party if that condition was not accomplished.) On December 3, 2013, the Court granted joint motion to dismiss the Conditions of Education Consent Decree upon the implementation of the recommendations listed in the November 26, 2013 status report. On May 28, 2014, the Court granted a motion to dissolve the Conditions of Education Consent Decree. Since no motion was filed prior to April 1, 2014, on the conditions claims, the case is therefore concluded.

Summary Authors

Maurice Youkanna (6/26/2014)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4829579/parties/morgan-v-nagin/


Judge(s)

Roby, Karen Wells (Louisiana)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Eubanks, Sharon Y (District of Columbia)

Felder, LaKeytria (District of Columbia)

Hanlon, Stephen F (District of Columbia)

Kolinchak, Carol (Louisiana)

Schulz, George E. Jr. (Florida)

Williams, John S (Louisiana)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Bryan, Trevor G (Louisiana)

DiRosa, Joseph Vincent Jr. (Louisiana)

Jupiter, Clare (Louisiana)

Judge(s)

Roby, Karen Wells (Louisiana)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Eubanks, Sharon Y (District of Columbia)

Felder, LaKeytria (District of Columbia)

Hanlon, Stephen F (District of Columbia)

Kolinchak, Carol (Louisiana)

Schulz, George E. Jr. (Florida)

Williams, John S (Louisiana)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Bryan, Trevor G (Louisiana)

DiRosa, Joseph Vincent Jr. (Louisiana)

Jupiter, Clare (Louisiana)

Lambert, Nolan Patrick (Louisiana)

Morris, Edward Michael (Louisiana)

Moses-Fields, Penya M (Louisiana)

Mullaly, James Bryan (Louisiana)

Valliant, Heather M (Louisiana)

Zibilich, Franz L. (Louisiana)

Expert/Monitor/Master

Lemelle, Ivan L. R. (Louisiana)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:07-cv-09755

Docket

Dec. 1, 2007

Dec. 1, 2007

Docket
1

2:07-cv-09755

Complaint

Dec. 21, 2007

Dec. 21, 2007

Complaint
51

2:07-cv-09755

Order and Reasons [Granting Motion to Prohibit Obstruction to Counsel]

March 4, 2008

March 4, 2008

Order/Opinion
84

2:07-cv-09755

Order and Reasons [Denying Motion to Dismiss]

2008 WL 2522127

June 19, 2008

June 19, 2008

Order/Opinion
103

2:07-cv-09755

Order and Reasons [Denying Motion to Dismiss]

Aug. 26, 2008

Aug. 26, 2008

Order/Opinion
159

2:07-cv-09755

Order of Class Certification

Feb. 5, 2009

Feb. 5, 2009

Order/Opinion
159

2:07-cv-09755

Order and Reasons [Granting Motion for Class Certification]

255 F.R.D. 406

Feb. 5, 2009

Feb. 5, 2009

Order/Opinion
161

2:07-cv-09755

Order [Denying Defendants' Motion for Sanctions]

2009 WL 363456

Feb. 11, 2009

Feb. 11, 2009

Order/Opinion
239

2:07-cv-09755

Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement

Dec. 7, 2009

Dec. 7, 2009

Notice Letter
241

2:07-cv-09755

Consent Decree - Confinement Claims

Feb. 12, 2010

Feb. 12, 2010

Settlement Agreement

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4829579/morgan-v-nagin/

Last updated Aug. 7, 2022, 3:02 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
84

ORDER denying 44 Motion to Dismiss Case. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle on 6/19/08. (lag, )

June 20, 2008

June 20, 2008

RECAP
159

ORDER granting 146 Motion to Certify Class. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle on 2/5/09. (lag, )

Feb. 6, 2009

Feb. 6, 2009

RECAP
161

ORDER denying dft's 101 Motion for Sanctions &/or contempt; the Court however, admonishes plas' counsel to refrain from any future attempts to circumvent ruling of the undersigned. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby on 2/11/09. (bbc, )

Feb. 11, 2009

Feb. 11, 2009

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory: Louisiana

Case Type(s):

Juvenile Institution

Special Collection(s):

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Dec. 21, 2007

Closing Date: 2014

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Children confined at the Youth Study Center in New Orleans, LA -- JD (17 years old), LE (17 years old), and RA (13 years old)

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

City of New Orleans (New Orleans, Orleans), City

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.

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

State law

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 2010 - 2014

Content of Injunction:

Remedial education

Hire

Develop anti-discrimination policy

Implement complaint/dispute resolution process

Reporting

Monitoring

Goals (e.g., for hiring, admissions)

Issues

General:

Access to lawyers or judicial system

Assault/abuse by residents/inmates/students

Assault/abuse by staff

Bathing and hygiene

Conditions of confinement

Confinement/isolation

Disciplinary procedures

Disciplinary segregation

Education

Failure to train

Family reunification

Food service / nutrition / hydration

Grievance Procedures

Individualized planning

Juveniles

Mail

Parents (visitation, involvement)

Phone

Recreation / Exercise

Rehabilitation

Restraints : physical

Sanitation / living conditions

Special education

Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)

Totality of conditions

Visiting

Crowding:

Crowding / caseload

Discrimination-basis:

Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)

Affected Gender:

Female

Male

Disability:

Mental impairment

Medical/Mental Health:

Intellectual/Developmental Disability

Medical care, general

Medication, administration of

Mental health care, general

Type of Facility:

Government-run