Case: Hill v. Snyder

2:10-cv-14568 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan

Filed Date: Nov. 17, 2010

Closed Date: Nov. 17, 2020

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This is a lawsuit challenging mandatory life sentences without parole for juveniles in Michigan.On November 17, 2010, juvenile prisoners filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the State of Michigan, challenging the state law that prohibited the Michigan Parole Board from considering for parole juveniles who were sentenced to life in prison without parole for first-degree murder. The plaintiffs, represented by counsel from the American…

This is a lawsuit challenging mandatory life sentences without parole for juveniles in Michigan.

On November 17, 2010, juvenile prisoners filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the State of Michigan, challenging the state law that prohibited the Michigan Parole Board from considering for parole juveniles who were sentenced to life in prison without parole for first-degree murder. The plaintiffs, represented by counsel from the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, asked the court for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief.

The state subsequently moved to dismiss this case. On July 15, 2011, the district court (Hon. John Corbett O'Meara) granted, in part, the state's motion to dismiss, holding that all but one of the plaintiffs were barred from action by the statute of limitations. 2011 WL 2788205. The state moved the court for certification of interlocutory appeal to dismiss that final claim while the plaintiffs moved the court to reconsider their holding regarding the statute of limitations. In January of 2012, the Court denied both motions. 2012 WL 75313.

On February 1, 2012, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to include a number of new plaintiffs whose actions were not barred by the statute of limitations. The plaintiffs then moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Supreme Court had held in Miller v. Alabama that mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. On January 30, 2013, the court granted partial summary judgment for the plaintiffs, ordering that the plaintiffs should have a fair and meaningful opportunity to demonstrate that they are appropriate candidates for parole, and directing the parties to provide briefing on what would constitute a "fair and meaningful" opportunity. 2013 WL 364198. On August 12, 2013, the court defined the scope of the January 30, 2013 order as applying to all persons convicted of first-degree murder in the State of Michigan as juveniles and who were sentenced to life in prison without parole. The state appealed the January 30 order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and requested that the Circuit stay the court's order pending appeal.

After two years at the appellate court, on June 20, 2016, Judge Jane Stranch issued an opinion for the Sixth Circuit vacating the district court's orders from January and August of 2013 and remanding the suit to the district level for consideration of several new legal developments. 821 F.3d 763. The Supreme Court's 2012 decision in Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012), prohibited sentences of life without parole for juveniles except in very rare and extreme circumstances. The Court later held in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016), that the decision in Miller would apply retroactively to juveniles sentenced to life without parole. In addition, Michigan passed new statutes, Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.25-25a, in response to the Miller decision.

The plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint in response to Michigan's new statutes, alleging that the revised parole system was unfair and inequitable. The case was remanded to the district court where Judge O'Meara granted the plaintiff's motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on July 7, 2016 to stop the re-sentencing of juvenile offenders that would occur under Michigan's new laws. The state appealed this decision, and a second appellate decision was issued on July 20, 2016. 2016 WL 4046827. There, the Sixth Circuit (Stranch, Merritt, Bouie Donald, JJ.) reversed the district court's order for a TRO reasoning that the district court was effectively issuing an injunction contrary to the original June 2016 Sixth Circuit opinion.

On August 3, 2016, Judge O'Meara denied the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. 2016 WL 4119805. The plaintiffs were seeking to stop prosecutors from re-sentencing juveniles under Michigan's new laws, but Judge O'Meara noted that Miller did not entirely prohibit sentences for life without parole, so states had discretion to determine which rare offenders would continued to be sentenced to life without parole.

On February 7, 2017, Judge O'Meara granted the defendant's motion to dismiss on the grounds that the court no longer had jurisdiction over the matter at hand. 2017 WL 492076. Based upon the change in the legal landscape the plaintiffs were to receive individualized sentencing hearings taking the new statute and the plaintiff's age at the time of the alleged crime into account. The court held that this should redound to the plaintiff's benefit and that any claims regarding the constitutionality of the new statute must be brought up at the forthcoming sentencing hearings or under the writ of habeas corpus.

A month later, the plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Sixth Circuit. On December 20, 2017, that court issued its opinion, affirming the district court's dismissal of counts I and II as moot and reversing counts IV, V, and VI. While claims concerning the state's statutes issuing life without parole were barred from constitutional challenge under Heck doctrine, Heck did not bar review of the state's policies and procedures regarding parole eligibility. Younger abstention was not warranted. The amended complaint's ex post facto claims good time credit revocation were sufficiently stated and ripe for review. These claims were remanded to the district court for review. 878 F.3d 193 (6th Cir. 2017).

The plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on count V for injunctive relief and again for class certification once the case was remanded. The case was reassigned to Judge Mark A. Goldsmith in Detroit. The court held hearings on March 22, and the defendants moved to stay the results of those proceedings in the event an injunction was granted. On March 30, in anticipation of an unfavorable summary judgement ruling as to count V, the state moved to request a 14-day stay of any forthcoming order from the court to allow time to file an appeal.

On April 9, 2018 Judge Goldsmith granted the plaintiff’s motions for class certification in full and partial summary judgement as to count V, and denied the state’s request for a 14-day stay. 308 F. Supp. 3d 398. Judge Goldsmith certified a class consisting of “all individuals in Michigan DOC custody who were convicted of first-degree murder for offenses committed when they were below 18 years of age, were or will be subjected to resentencing under M.C.L. § 769.25a, and are or could become eligible for parole.” He also certified two subclasses: the first including “all persons in the primary class whose offenses occurred prior to December 15, 1998,” and the second consisting of “all persons in the primary class who are still awaiting resentencing."

Judge Goldsmith found that Pullman abstention was not warranted in this case as Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.25a(6) was “unmistakably clear” and solidly supported the plaintiffs' position that it retroactively deprived them of good time and disciplinary credits previously earned. He also said that Pullman abstention would carry too great a risk of constitutional guarantees going unenforced, noting the state’s pattern in this case of failing to carry out court orders to anyone other than the named plaintiffs. Judge Goldmith found that Younger absention would be inappropriate because the plaintiffs were not seeking to interfere with any ongoing state judicial proceedings, noting that it is the responsibility of the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC), not Michigan state courts, to calculate good time and disciplinary credits.

Judge Goldsmith then held that Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.25a(6) was an unconstitutional ex post facto law because it retroactively removed the plaintiffs’ credits, and ordered the state to apply good time and disciplinary credits in calculating parole eligibility dates for juvenile lifers resentenced to a term of years, denying the state’s request for a 14-day stay. Judge Goldsmith denied without prejudice both parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment as to the Count VI allegation that the denial of rehabilitative programming denied the plaintiffs a fair and meaningful opportunity for release, pointing out that no discovery had taken place on this issue. The state appealed the April 9 decision to the Sixth Circuit and moved for an emergency stay of the district court’s order to deny the 14-day stay. 2018 WL 1782710, 308 F.Supp.3d 893. A week later, the Sixth Circuit (Judge Stranch) denied the state’s request for a stay of the district court order but said that the Court of Appeals would consider the appeal on an expedited basis.

In its appeal, the state asked the Sixth Circuit to determine that the district court should not have considered Count V, based on either the Pullman or Younger abstention doctrines. On August 14, 2018, the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion by Judge Stranch rejecting both of the state's arguments and affirming the decision of the district court.

Under Pullman abstention, the defendants argued that "whether Plaintiffs earned good time credits while serving their life sentences is an unsettled question of Michigan law that must be answered, in the first instance, by Michigan courts." Judge Stranch said that the relevant statutory provisions were unambiguous and supported the plaintiffs’ position and that Michigan courts had made it clear that individuals previously serving life sentences without parole who received new sentences may not be deprived of the credits earned during their prior sentences.

As for Younger abstention, Judge Stranch said that "the late stage of the litigation rendered the doctrine incongruous and inapplicable." The district court had awarded the plaintiffs summary judgment on Count V (the deprivation of Plaintiffs’ good time and disciplinary credits in Section 769.25a(6) violates the Ex Post Facto Clause) and ordered permanent injunctive relief that prohibited the defendants from enforcing or applying the statutory provision that effected the credit elimination, Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.265a(6). Judge Stranch affirmed this decision, concluding that because the elimination of credits delayed the plaintiffs' release, Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.25a(6) makes a defendant's sentence more onerous, and thus violates the Ex Post Facto Clause.

Judge Stranch affirmed the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment and permanent injunctive relief for the plaintiffs. 900 F.3d 260 (6th Cir. 2018). The Sixth Circuit later denied rehearing en banc.

While the state's appeal was pending before the Sixth Circuit, the plaintiffs agreed to withdraw their claim for money damages in exchange for the state withdrawing its defense that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies.

On November 13, 2018, Judge Goldsmith entered a stipulated order of voluntary dismissal as to Count IV of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. This cause of action alleged that the statutory scheme under M.C.L. §§ 791.231 through 791.246 violated the plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) and Fourteenth Amendment (due process) rights because the mandatory term of imprisonment is the equivalent of life imprisonment and they would not be guaranteed a meaningful opportunity for release on parole before the end of their natural lives.

The same day, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment as to Count VI of plaintiffs' second amended complaint. This claim alleged Eighth Amendment violations on the part of two individual defendants for refusal to provide the plaintiffs with the programming, education, training, and rehabilitation opportunities necessary for the plaintiffs to demonstrate their suitability for release, and thereby denying the plaintiffs parole opportunities.

The plaintiffs filed a motion to compel compliance with judgment, alleging that the defendants had refused to apply credits as required by state law and Michigan Department of Corrections policies for at least two subclass members, in violation of the April 2018 judgment. After a hearing, the motion was denied by Judge Goldsmith on February 26, 2019.

Also in February, Judge Goldsmith denied the plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees without prejudice because Count VI of the plaintiffs' second amended complaint remained pending before the court.

On July 12, 2019, Judge Goldsmith issued an opinion on the defendants' motion for summary judgment with regard to Count VI. Judge Goldsmith granted summary judgment as to the issue of whether plaintiffs were being denied a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation because of their inability to take core programming. However, Judge Goldsmith denied summary judgment as to whether denial of core programs to plaintiffs without an early release date/parole board jurisdiction date affects their ability to obtain release on parole. 2019 WL 3067977 (July 12 2019 E.D. Mich.)

The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on October 29, 2019 adding two new causes of action. Count VII alleged that subjecting the plaintiffs to life in prison without a meaningful opportunity for release based on their juvenile status and their demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation violates international law reflected in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. Count VIII alleged that the defendants' failure to provide resentencing hearings to the plaintiff class violated the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

A fourth amended complaint was filed on February 27, 2020, adding new plaintiffs. In March 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss count VIII of the plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint.

In June 2020, Judge Goldsmith issued an opinion denying the defendants' September 2019 motion for summary judgment as to count VI of the plaintiffs' complaint, writing that the defendants had not established that their policy of denying class members access to core programming did not result in a deprivation of their right to a meaningful opportunity to obtain release. 2020 WL 2849969 (June 2 2020 E.D. Mich.) Two weeks later, the defendants filed a motion for reconsideration.

The parties proceeded with settlement talks before Magistrate Judge David R. Grand throughout the summer and reached a settlement agreement during a conference on September 17, 2020. Under the terms of the settlement, the Michigan Department of Corrections agreed to complete a file review and propose programming recommendations for all class members yet to be resentenced, subject to approval by the Parole Board. An artificial Earliest Release Date of 25 years would be calculated for all class members awaiting resentencing and class members will be placed in programming or on waitlists based on their artificial Earliest Release Date. Upon resentencing, placement on programming waitlists will be automatically adjusted based on their actual Earliest Release Date.

In addition, the Attorney General agreed to send written communications to all elected county prosecutors in each county where class members' resentencing hearings were not completed. The communication would include a request that prosecutors complete review of cases not yet resentenced and notify the sentencing court and Attorney General whether they intended to seek reimposition of life-without-parole. It would also include an offer to provide staffing and resources for case reviews and/or to intervene and complete a case review upon request of the prosecuting attorney.

The court approved the settlement and entered final judgment on November 17, 2020.

Summary Authors

Maurice Youkanna (6/10/2014)

Salvatore Mancina (11/9/2016)

Nichollas Dawson (11/6/2017)

Alexander Walling (7/20/2018)

Sabrina Glavota (6/19/2020)

Rachel Harrington (4/21/2021)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4291780/parties/hill-v-whitmer/


Judge(s)

Cook, Deborah L. (Ohio)

Donald, Bernice Bouie (Tennessee)

Goldsmith, Mark Allan (Michigan)

Grand, David R. (Michigan)

Griffin, Richard Allen (Michigan)

Merritt, Gilbert Stroud Jr. (Tennessee)

O'Meara, John Corbett (Michigan)

Rogers, John M. (District of Columbia)

Stranch, Jane Branstetter (Tennessee)

Whalen, R. Steven (Michigan)

Judge(s)

Cook, Deborah L. (Ohio)

Donald, Bernice Bouie (Tennessee)

Goldsmith, Mark Allan (Michigan)

Grand, David R. (Michigan)

Griffin, Richard Allen (Michigan)

Merritt, Gilbert Stroud Jr. (Tennessee)

O'Meara, John Corbett (Michigan)

Rogers, John M. (District of Columbia)

Stranch, Jane Branstetter (Tennessee)

Whalen, R. Steven (Michigan)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Buskey, Brandon (New York)

Dahlberg, Robin L. (New York)

Edwards, Ezekiel (New York)

Gupta, Vanita (New York)

Kitaba, Bonsitu A. (Michigan)

Korobkin, Daniel S. (Michigan)

Labelle, Deborah A. (Michigan)

Moss, Kary L. (Michigan)

Parker, Dennis D. (New York)

Reosti, Ronald J. (Michigan)

Rorty, Jay (New York)

Steinberg, Michael J. (Michigan)

Watt, Steven M. (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Dalzell, Kathryn M (Michigan)

Froehlich, Joseph T. (Michigan)

Geminick, Lisa Clark (Michigan)

Govorchin, A. Peter (Michigan)

Mertens, Scott A. (Michigan)

Nelson, Margaret A. (Michigan)

Restuccia, B. Eric (Michigan)

Sherman, Ann (Michigan)

Thurber, John L. (Michigan)

Trudgeon, Sara Elizabeth (Michigan)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:10-cv-14568

13-02661

13-02705

17-01252

16-02003

18-01418

Docket [PACER]

Hill v. Whitmer

Nov. 17, 2020

Nov. 17, 2020

Docket
1

2:10-cv-14568

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Hill v. Granholm

Nov. 17, 2010

Nov. 17, 2010

Complaint
29

2:10-cv-14568

Supplemental Authority

Hill v. Granholm

July 12, 2011

July 12, 2011

Pleading / Motion / Brief
31

2:10-cv-14568

Opinion and Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

Hill v. Granholm

2011 WL 2788205

July 15, 2011

July 15, 2011

Order/Opinion
41

2:10-cv-14568

Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration

Hill v. Granholm

2012 WL 75313

Jan. 10, 2012

Jan. 10, 2012

Order/Opinion
42

2:10-cv-14568

Order Denying the Defendants' Motion for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal

Hill v. Synder

Jan. 12, 2012

Jan. 12, 2012

Order/Opinion
44

2:10-cv-14568

First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Hill v. Synder

Feb. 1, 2012

Feb. 1, 2012

Complaint
46

2:10-cv-14568

Stipulation and Order Applying This Court's Prior Order of July 15, 2011, to the February 1, 2012 Amended Complaint

Hill v. Granholm

Feb. 21, 2012

Feb. 21, 2012

Order/Opinion
62

2:10-cv-14568

Opinion and Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment

2013 WL 364198

Jan. 30, 2013

Jan. 30, 2013

Order/Opinion
93

2:10-cv-14568

Order Denying Motions to Intervene

Aug. 12, 2013

Aug. 12, 2013

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4291780/hill-v-whitmer/

Last updated July 21, 2022, 3:14 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief filed by All Plaintiffs against All Defendants. Plaintiff requests summons issued. Receipt No: 0645-2718874 - Fee: $ 350. County of 1st Plaintiff: Lapeer - County Where Action Arose: Multi - County of 1st Defendant: Ingham. [Previously dismissed case: No] [Possible companion case(s): None] (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 11/17/2010)

Nov. 17, 2010

Nov. 17, 2010

Clearinghouse
2

SUMMONS Issued for *Jennifer Granholm* (LHac) (Entered: 11/17/2010)

Nov. 17, 2010

Nov. 17, 2010

PACER
3

SUMMONS Issued for *Patricia Caruso* (LHac) (Entered: 11/17/2010)

Nov. 17, 2010

Nov. 17, 2010

PACER
4

SUMMONS Issued for *Barbara Sampson* (LHac) (Entered: 11/17/2010)

Nov. 17, 2010

Nov. 17, 2010

PACER

A United States Magistrate Judge of this Court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636c and FRCP 73. The Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge form is available for download at http://www.mied.uscourts.gov (LHac)

Nov. 17, 2010

Nov. 17, 2010

PACER
5

NOTICE of Appearance by Michael J. Steinberg on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 11/18/2010)

Nov. 18, 2010

Nov. 18, 2010

PACER
6

NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel S. Korobkin on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Korobkin, Daniel) (Entered: 11/18/2010)

Nov. 18, 2010

Nov. 18, 2010

PACER
7

WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Patricia Caruso waiver sent on 11/18/2010, answer due 1/18/2011. (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 12/16/2010)

Dec. 16, 2010

Dec. 16, 2010

PACER
8

WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Barbara Sampson waiver sent on 11/18/2010, answer due 1/18/2011. (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 12/16/2010)

Dec. 16, 2010

Dec. 16, 2010

PACER
9

CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. Jennifer Granholm served on 12/20/2010, answer due 1/10/2011. (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 12/22/2010)

Dec. 22, 2010

Dec. 22, 2010

PACER
10

NOTICE of Appearance by Margaret A. Nelson on behalf of All Defendants. (Nelson, Margaret) (Entered: 01/12/2011)

Jan. 12, 2011

Jan. 12, 2011

PACER
11

NOTICE of Appearance by Joseph T. Froehlich on behalf of All Defendants. (Froehlich, Joseph) (Entered: 01/12/2011)

Jan. 12, 2011

Jan. 12, 2011

PACER
12

MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages with Brief in Support by All Defendants. (Froehlich, Joseph) (Entered: 01/12/2011)

Jan. 12, 2011

Jan. 12, 2011

PACER
13

ANSWER to Complaint with Affirmative Defenses by All Defendants. (Nelson, Margaret) (Entered: 01/18/2011)

Jan. 18, 2011

Jan. 18, 2011

PACER
14

ORDER granting in part 12 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 01/23/2011)

Jan. 21, 2011

Jan. 21, 2011

PACER
15

NOTICE TO APPEAR: Scheduling Conference set for 2/16/2011 11:00 AM before District Judge John Corbett O'Meara, or file Rule 26(f) Plan. (WBar) (Entered: 01/23/2011)

Jan. 23, 2011

Jan. 23, 2011

PACER
16

DISCOVERY plan jointly filed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(f) (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 02/10/2011)

Feb. 10, 2011

Feb. 10, 2011

PACER
17

SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 8/31/2011 Dispositive Motion Cut-off set for 9/30/2011 Final Pretrial Conference set for 1/11/2012 02:00 PM before District Judge John Corbett O'Meara Trailing Trial Docket set for 2/7/2012 Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (Refer to image for additional dates) (WBar) (Entered: 02/10/2011)

Feb. 10, 2011

Feb. 10, 2011

PACER
18

MOTION to Dismiss or Alternatively, MOTION for Summary Judgment by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Bobby Hines) (Nelson, Margaret) (Entered: 02/28/2011)

1 Exhibit 1 Bobby Hines

View on PACER

Feb. 28, 2011

Feb. 28, 2011

PACER
19

NOTICE of hearing on 18 MOTION to Dismiss or Alternatively MOTION for Summary Judgment. Motion Hearing set for 4/21/2011 02:15 PM before District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 03/04/2011)

March 4, 2011

March 4, 2011

PACER
20

STIPULATION AND ORDER Extending Time to Respond to 18 MOTION to Dismiss or Alternatively MOTION for Summary Judgment; Response due by 4/1/2011. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 03/10/2011)

March 10, 2011

March 10, 2011

PACER
21

STIPULATION AND ORDER to Allow Plaintiffs to Exceed the Page Limit for their Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss - Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (FMos) (Entered: 04/01/2011)

April 1, 2011

April 1, 2011

PACER
22

RESPONSE to 18 MOTION to Dismiss or Alternatively MOTION for Summary Judgment Plaintiffs' Response to Mot. to Dis. filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B) (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 04/01/2011)

1 Exhibit Exhibit A

View on PACER

2 Exhibit Exhibit B

View on PACER

April 1, 2011

April 1, 2011

PACER
23

STIPULATED ORDER Extending Time for Defendants' Discovery Responses - Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (FMos) (Entered: 04/04/2011)

April 4, 2011

April 4, 2011

PACER
24

NOTICE of Appearance by Ezekiel R. Edwards - NOT SWORN on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Edwards - NOT SWORN, Ezekiel) (Entered: 04/08/2011)

April 8, 2011

April 8, 2011

PACER
25

NOTICE of Appearance by Steven M. Watt - NOT SWORN on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Watt - NOT SWORN, Steven) (Entered: 04/14/2011)

April 14, 2011

April 14, 2011

PACER
26

REPLY to 18 MOTION to Dismiss or Alternatively MOTION for Summary Judgment Entitled: Defendants' Reply Brief by Patricia Caruso, Jennifer Granholm, Barbara Sampson. (Nelson, Margaret) (Entered: 04/18/2011)

April 18, 2011

April 18, 2011

PACER

Minute Entry - Motion Hearing held on 4/21/2011 re 18 MOTION to Dismiss or Alternatively MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Patricia Caruso, Barbara Sampson, Jennifer Granholm before District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. Disposition: Taken Under Advisement(Court Reporter Andrea Wabeke) (WBar)

April 21, 2011

April 21, 2011

PACER
27

MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief by NOVJL. (CGre) (Entered: 04/28/2011)

April 28, 2011

April 28, 2011

RECAP
28

[STRICKEN] REQUEST FOR ADMISISONS, DIRECTED TO ALL DEFENDANTS by All Plaintiffs. (LaBelle, Deborah) Modified on 7/13/2011 (TMcg). (Entered: 07/13/2011)

July 13, 2011

July 13, 2011

PACER
29

STATEMENT of Supplemental Authority by Patricia Caruso, Jennifer Granholm, Barbara Sampson (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Authority) (Froehlich, Joseph) (Entered: 07/13/2011)

1 Supplemental Authority

View on PACER

July 13, 2011

July 13, 2011

Clearinghouse
30

NOTICE of Error re 28 Request. (TMcg) (Entered: 07/13/2011)

July 13, 2011

July 13, 2011

PACER
31

OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 18 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 07/15/2011)

July 15, 2011

July 15, 2011

Clearinghouse
32

ORDER denying 27 Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 07/15/2011)

July 15, 2011

July 15, 2011

PACER
33

STIPULATED ORDER Amending 17 Scheduling Order,, ( Discovery due by 9/30/2011, Dispositive Motion Cut-off set for 10/31/2011) Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 07/18/2011)

July 18, 2011

July 18, 2011

PACER
34

MOTION for Certificate of Appealability Entitled: Defendants' Motion for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal and Request for Stay Pending Appeal, Brief in Support and Certificate of Service by Patricia Caruso, Jennifer Granholm, Barbara Sampson. (Froehlich, Joseph) (Entered: 07/28/2011)

July 28, 2011

July 28, 2011

PACER
35

MOTION for Reconsideration re 31 Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1, Henry Hill 2010 Parole Eligibility/Lifer Review Report & Decision of Parole Board) (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 07/28/2011)

1 Index of Exhibits

View on PACER

2 Exhibit 1, Henry Hill 2010 Parole Eligibility/Lifer Review Report & Decision of

View on PACER

July 28, 2011

July 28, 2011

PACER
36

RESPONSE to 34 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability Entitled: Defendants' Motion for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal and Request for Stay Pending Appeal, Brief in Support and Certificate of Service PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND REQUEST FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL filed by All Plaintiffs. (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 08/05/2011)

Aug. 5, 2011

Aug. 5, 2011

PACER
37

NOTICE by All Defendants of Automatic substitution of parties (Nelson, Margaret) (Entered: 08/24/2011)

Aug. 24, 2011

Aug. 24, 2011

PACER
38

STIPULATION AND ORDER Staying 33 Amended Scheduling Order. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 08/30/2011)

Aug. 30, 2011

Aug. 30, 2011

PACER
39

Order Substituting Parties and Amending Case Caption. Daniel H. Heyns and Thomas R Combs added. Barbara Sampson terminated. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (PMil) (Entered: 08/30/2011)

Aug. 30, 2011

Aug. 30, 2011

PACER
40

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF re 36 Response to Motion, 34 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability Entitled: Defendants' Motion for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal and Request for Stay Pending Appeal, Brief in Support and Certificate of Service filed by All Plaintiffs. (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 11/14/2011)

Nov. 14, 2011

Nov. 14, 2011

PACER
41

ORDER denying 35 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 01/10/2012)

Jan. 10, 2012

Jan. 10, 2012

Clearinghouse
42

ORDER denying 34 Motion for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 01/12/2012)

Jan. 12, 2012

Jan. 12, 2012

Clearinghouse
43

STIPULATION AND ORDER to Amend Complaint and Revise Scheduling Order, ( Discovery due by 8/31/2012, Dispositive Motion Cut-off set for 9/30/2012, Final Pretrial Conference set for 1/23/2013 02:00 PM before District Judge John Corbett O'Meara, Trailing Trial Docket set for 2/5/2013) Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 01/25/2012)

Jan. 25, 2012

Jan. 25, 2012

PACER
44

[DOCUMENT TITLED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF] ANSWER to Complaint First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief by All Plaintiffs. (LaBelle, Deborah) Modified on 2/21/2012 (SSch). (Entered: 02/01/2012)

Feb. 1, 2012

Feb. 1, 2012

Clearinghouse

REQUEST for SUMMONS for Thomas R Combs, Daniel H. Heyns, Rick Snyder. (LaBelle, Deborah)

Feb. 6, 2012

Feb. 6, 2012

PACER
45

SUMMONS Issued for *Thomas R Combs, Daniel H. Heyns, Rick Snyder* (KKra) (Entered: 02/07/2012)

Feb. 7, 2012

Feb. 7, 2012

PACER
46

STIPULATION AND ORDER Applying Court's July 15, 2011 Opinion and Order to 44 Amended Complaint, Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 02/21/2012)

Feb. 21, 2012

Feb. 21, 2012

Clearinghouse
47

ANSWER to 44 Answer to Complaint and Affirmative Defenses by All Defendants. (Nelson, Margaret) (Entered: 02/21/2012)

Feb. 21, 2012

Feb. 21, 2012

PACER
48

STIPULATED ORDER Extending Discovery Responses, Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 04/01/2012)

March 30, 2012

March 30, 2012

PACER
49

NOTICE TO APPEAR: Status Conference set for 7/11/2012 01:45 PM before District Judge John Corbett O'Meara (SSro) (Entered: 06/25/2012)

June 25, 2012

June 25, 2012

PACER

Minute Entry - Status Conference held (not on the record) on 7/11/2012 before District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)

July 11, 2012

July 11, 2012

PACER
50

MOTION for Summary Judgment and Equitable Relief & Brief in Support by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit People v. Jones, Exhibit 1) (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 08/07/2012)

1 Exhibit People v. Jones, Exhibit 1

View on PACER

Aug. 7, 2012

Aug. 7, 2012

PACER
51

MOTION to Expedite Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment & Equitable Relief by All Plaintiffs. (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 08/07/2012)

Aug. 7, 2012

Aug. 7, 2012

PACER
52

NOTICE of hearing on 50 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Equitable Relief. Motion Hearing set for 9/20/2012 02:00 PM before District Judge John Corbett O'Meara (WBar) (Entered: 08/08/2012)

Aug. 8, 2012

Aug. 8, 2012

PACER
53

ORDER Granting 51 MOTION to Expedite Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment & Equitable Relief. Briefing Schedule re 50 MOTION for Summary Judgment: Response due by 8/28/2012, Reply due by 9/4/2012. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 08/20/2012)

Aug. 20, 2012

Aug. 20, 2012

PACER
54

RESPONSE to 50 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Equitable Relief & Brief in Support filed by Patricia Caruso, Thomas R Combs, Jennifer Granholm, Daniel H. Heyns, Rick Snyder. (Nelson, Margaret) (Entered: 08/28/2012)

Aug. 28, 2012

Aug. 28, 2012

PACER
55

REPLY to Response re 50 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Equitable Relief & Brief in Support and Response to Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment filed by All Plaintiffs. (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 09/04/2012)

Sept. 4, 2012

Sept. 4, 2012

PACER
56

REPLY to 55 Reply to Response to Motion with Certificate of Service by Patricia Caruso, Thomas R Combs, Jennifer Granholm, Daniel H. Heyns, Rick Snyder. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits A-B, # 2 Exhibit A - Michigan Supreme Court Order, File No. 144384; dated 09/07/12, # 3 Exhibit B - Michigan Court of Appeals Order, File No. 307758; dated 08/09/12) (Froehlich, Joseph) (Entered: 09/17/2012)

1 Index of Exhibits A-B

View on PACER

2 Exhibit A - Michigan Supreme Court Order, File No. 144384; dated 09/07/12

View on PACER

3 Exhibit B - Michigan Court of Appeals Order, File No. 307758; dated 08/09/12

View on PACER

Sept. 17, 2012

Sept. 17, 2012

PACER

Minute Entry - Motion Hearing held on 9/20/2012 re 50 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Equitable Relief, before District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. Disposition: Taken Under Advisement(Court Reporter Andrea Wabeke) (WBar)

Sept. 20, 2012

Sept. 20, 2012

PACER
57

TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held on 9/20/2012. (Court Reporter Andrea Wabeke) (Number of Pages: 23) The parties have 21 days to file with the court and Court Reporter/Transcriber a Redaction Request of this transcript. If no request is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 days. Redaction Request due 10/24/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/5/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/2/2013. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter at 248.867.2842 or www.transcriptorders.com before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, the transcript is publicly available. (Wabeke, A) (Entered: 10/03/2012)

Oct. 3, 2012

Oct. 3, 2012

PACER
58

STATEMENT of Supplemental Authority by Thomas R Combs, Daniel H. Heyns, Rick Snyder (Attachments: # 1 Attachment: Geter v State of Florida) (Froehlich, Joseph) (Entered: 10/12/2012)

1 Attachment: Geter v State of Florida

View on PACER

Oct. 12, 2012

Oct. 12, 2012

PACER
59

STATEMENT of Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Supplemental Authority by All Plaintiffs (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Geter v. State, # 2 Exhibit Gonzalez v. State) (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 10/16/2012)

1 Exhibit Geter v. State

View on PACER

2 Exhibit Gonzalez v. State

View on PACER

Oct. 16, 2012

Oct. 16, 2012

PACER
60

STATEMENT of Supplemental Authority by Thomas R Combs, Daniel H. Heyns, Rick Snyder (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment to Supplemental Authority) (Froehlich, Joseph) (Entered: 11/19/2012)

1 Exhibit Attachment to Supplemental Authority

View on PACER

Nov. 19, 2012

Nov. 19, 2012

PACER
61

STATEMENT of Plaintiffs' Supplemental Authority by All Plaintiffs (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit People v. Carl Williams Opinion) (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 11/28/2012)

1 Exhibit People v. Carl Williams Opinion

View on PACER

Nov. 28, 2012

Nov. 28, 2012

PACER

TEXT-ONLY NOTICE: Joint Final Pretrial Order Deadline, Final Pretrial Conference on 1/23/2013, and Trailing Trial Term are Cancelled re 43 Stipulation and Order; until after a ruling on the pending motion for summary judgment. (WBar)

Jan. 16, 2013

Jan. 16, 2013

PACER
62

OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 50 Motion for Summary Judgment; and Denying Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 01/30/2013)

Jan. 30, 2013

Jan. 30, 2013

Clearinghouse

Set Deadlines: Plaintiffs' Brief due 3/1/2013; Defendants' Response due by 3/22/2013; Plaintiffs' reply due by 3/29/2013. (WBar)

Jan. 30, 2013

Jan. 30, 2013

PACER
63

MOTION for entry of final judgment or alternatively certification of interlocutory appeal and request for stay pending appeal with brief in support by Patricia Caruso, Thomas R Combs, Jennifer Granholm, Daniel H. Heyns. (Froehlich, Joseph) (Entered: 02/14/2013)

Feb. 14, 2013

Feb. 14, 2013

PACER
64

RESPONSE to 63 MOTION for entry of final judgment or alternatively certification of interlocutory appeal and request for stay pending appeal with brief in support filed by All Plaintiffs. (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 02/21/2013)

Feb. 21, 2013

Feb. 21, 2013

PACER
65

MOTION to Intervene by Patrick Neil Kinney. (DWor) (Entered: 03/01/2013)

Feb. 28, 2013

Feb. 28, 2013

PACER
66

INTERVENOR COMPLAINT filed by Patrick Neil Kinney against Thomas R Combs, Daniel H. Heyns, Rick Snyder. (DWor) (Entered: 03/01/2013)

Feb. 28, 2013

Feb. 28, 2013

PACER
67

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF re Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings, 62 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment Plaintiffs' Briefing in Compliance filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit Affidavit of Gonzalo Ubillus, # 3 Exhibit Affidavit of Patricia Caruso, # 4 Exhibit Affidavit of Richard Stapleton, # 5 Exhibit Affidavit of Laurence D. Steinberg, # 6 Exhibit A.Jones Order Granting Relief from Judgment, # 7 Exhibit A.Jones Compas, # 8 Exhibit A.Jones Lifer Interview/Review Log, # 9 Exhibit A.Dunigan Order Denying Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration) (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 03/01/2013)

1 Index of Exhibits

View on PACER

2 Exhibit Affidavit of Gonzalo Ubillus

View on PACER

3 Exhibit Affidavit of Patricia Caruso

View on PACER

4 Exhibit Affidavit of Richard Stapleton

View on PACER

5 Exhibit Affidavit of Laurence D. Steinberg

View on PACER

6 Exhibit A.Jones Order Granting Relief from Judgment

View on PACER

7 Exhibit A.Jones Compas

View on PACER

8 Exhibit A.Jones Lifer Interview/Review Log

View on PACER

9 Exhibit A.Dunigan Order Denying Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration

View on PACER

March 1, 2013

March 1, 2013

PACER
68

MOTION to Intervene by Ali Sareini. (KKra) (Entered: 03/13/2013)

March 11, 2013

March 11, 2013

PACER
69

RESPONSE to 65 MOTION to Intervene filed by Thomas R Combs, Daniel H. Heyns, Rick Snyder. (Froehlich, Joseph) (Entered: 03/13/2013)

March 13, 2013

March 13, 2013

PACER
70

Notice of Determination of Motion Without Oral Argument re 65 MOTION to Intervene, 63 MOTION for entry of final judgment or alternatively certification of interlocutory appeal and request for stay pending appeal, 68 MOTION to Intervene (WBar) (Entered: 03/13/2013)

March 13, 2013

March 13, 2013

PACER
71

RESPONSE to 65 MOTION to Intervene filed by All Plaintiffs. (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 03/14/2013)

March 14, 2013

March 14, 2013

PACER
72

RESPONSE to 68 MOTION to Intervene filed by All Plaintiffs. (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 03/18/2013)

March 18, 2013

March 18, 2013

PACER
73

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF re 62 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Thomas R Combs, Daniel H. Heyns, Rick Snyder. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-Affidavit of Thomas Combs) (Nelson, Margaret) (Entered: 03/22/2013)

1 Exhibit 1-Affidavit of Thomas Combs

View on PACER

March 22, 2013

March 22, 2013

PACER
74

RESPONSE to 68 MOTION to Intervene filed by Thomas R Combs, Daniel H. Heyns, Rick Snyder. (Froehlich, Joseph) (Entered: 03/27/2013)

March 27, 2013

March 27, 2013

PACER
75

MOTION Motion for Ruling on Scope of Summary Judgment Order, or in the Alternative, Motion to Reconsider and Revise July 2011 Order Regarding the Statute of Limitations, or, in the Alternative, Motion to Reinstate Plaintiffs on Equal Protection Grounds re 31 Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, 62 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit Johnson v. U.S., Government's Response, # 3 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Parole Documents) (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 03/29/2013)

1 Index of Exhibits

View on PACER

2 Exhibit Johnson v. U.S., Government's Response

View on PACER

3 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Parole Documents

View on PACER

March 29, 2013

March 29, 2013

PACER
76

MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by All Plaintiffs. (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 03/29/2013)

March 29, 2013

March 29, 2013

PACER
77

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF re 76 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages, 62 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, 73 Supplemental Brief Plaintiffs' Reply Brief in Compliance with this Court's Order of January 30, 2013 filed by All Plaintiffs. (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 03/29/2013)

March 29, 2013

March 29, 2013

PACER
78

REPLY to Response re 65 MOTION to Intervene filed by Patrick Neil Kinney. (DWor) (Entered: 03/29/2013)

March 29, 2013

March 29, 2013

PACER
79

REPLY to Response re 65 MOTION to Intervene filed by Patrick Neil Kinney. (DWor) (Entered: 03/29/2013)

March 29, 2013

March 29, 2013

PACER
80

RESPONSE to 73 Supplemental Brief by Patrick Neil Kinney. (KKra) (Entered: 04/05/2013)

April 4, 2013

April 4, 2013

PACER

TEXT-ONLY ORDER Granting 76 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)

April 15, 2013

April 15, 2013

PACER
81

STIPULATED ORDER Extending Time to Respond to 75 MOTION Motion for Ruling on Scope of Summary Judgment Order, or in the Alternative, Motion to Reconsider and Revise July 2011 Order; Response due by 4/19/2013. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar) (Entered: 04/15/2013)

April 15, 2013

April 15, 2013

PACER
82

RESPONSE to 75 MOTION Motion for Ruling on Scope of Summary Judgment Order, or in the Alternative, Motion to Reconsider and Revise July 2011 Order Regarding the Statute of Limitations, or, in the Alternative, Motion to Reinstate Plaintiffs on Equal Protection Ground filed by Thomas R Combs, Daniel H. Heyns, Rick Snyder. (Froehlich, Joseph) (Entered: 04/19/2013)

April 19, 2013

April 19, 2013

PACER
83

REPLY to Response re 75 MOTION Motion for Ruling on Scope of Summary Judgment Order, or in the Alternative, Motion to Reconsider and Revise July 2011 Order Regarding the Statute of Limitations, or, in the Alternative, Motion to Reinstate Plaintiffs on Equal Protection Ground filed by All Plaintiffs. (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 04/25/2013)

April 25, 2013

April 25, 2013

PACER
84

MOTION to Certify Class by All Plaintiffs. (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 05/21/2013)

May 21, 2013

May 21, 2013

PACER
85

NOTICE of Supplemental Authority by Patrick Neil Kinney (SSch) (Entered: 05/30/2013)

May 28, 2013

May 28, 2013

PACER
86

ANSWER to 84 MOTION to Certify Class with Brief in Support by Thomas R Combs, Daniel H. Heyns, Rick Snyder. (Nelson, Margaret) (Entered: 06/11/2013)

June 11, 2013

June 11, 2013

PACER
87

SECOND NOTICE of Supplemental Authority by Patrick Neil Kinney (DWor) (Entered: 06/24/2013)

June 24, 2013

June 24, 2013

PACER
88

Ex Parte MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by All Plaintiffs. (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 06/24/2013)

June 24, 2013

June 24, 2013

PACER
89

REPLY to Response re 84 MOTION to Certify Class, 88 Ex Parte MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A) (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 06/24/2013)

1 Index of Exhibits

View on PACER

2 Exhibit A

View on PACER

June 24, 2013

June 24, 2013

PACER

TEXT-ONLY ORDER Granting 88 Ex Parte MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)

June 25, 2013

June 25, 2013

PACER
90

EX PARTE MOTION for Third-Party Intervenor by Gary Peters. (KKra) (Entered: 07/05/2013)

July 2, 2013

July 2, 2013

PACER
91

RESPONSE to 90 MOTION for Third-Party Intervener filed by All Plaintiffs. (LaBelle, Deborah) (Entered: 07/12/2013)

July 12, 2013

July 12, 2013

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Michigan

Case Type(s):

Criminal Justice (Other)

Special Collection(s):

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Nov. 17, 2010

Closing Date: Nov. 17, 2020

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Juvenile plaintiffs in prison for life without parole

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

ACLU of Michigan

ACLU Affiliates (any)

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

State of Michigan, State

Defendant Type(s):

Corrections

Jurisdiction-wide

Law-enforcement

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201

Constitutional Clause(s):

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Due Process

Ex Post Facto

Special Case Type(s):

Habeas

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Non-settlement Outcome

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Attorneys fees

Declaratory Judgment

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: $800,000

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief denied

Preliminary relief granted

Issues

General:

Good time

Habeas Corpus

International law

Juveniles

Over/Unlawful Detention

Parole grant/revocation

Pattern or Practice

Rehabilitation