Filed Date: July 24, 2012
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Prisoners detained at the Fluvanna Correctional Center for Women filed this class-action lawsuit against Armor Correctional Health Services and the Virginia Department of Corrections on July 24, 2012. Brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 28 U.S.C. §2201, the suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia and assigned to Judge Norman Moon. The plaintiffs, represented by the Legal Aid Justice Center, the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, and private counsel, sought declaratory and injunctive relief. They claimed that the prison provided insufficient medical care, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Armor, a for-profit corporation, provided health care at the prison. The Department of Corrections contracted with Armor to provide this service, but the Department remained responsible for administration and oversight. The plaintiffs claimed that the Department and Armor were deliberately indifferent to prisoners’ medical needs, and that Armor’s profit motives led to deviations from accepted standards of care. In order to minimize costs, Armor employed licensed practical nurses rather than physicians or registered nurses; failed to devote time and attention to examining and diagnosing potentially serious medical problems; refused to refer prisoners for specialized care; failed to carry out treatments prescribed by specialists; and refused to provide prisoners with medication for severe chronic pain. The plaintiffs also claimed that the prison deviated from accepted standards of care on the basis of purported security concerns, devoid of any legitimate penological justification. They claimed that as a result, they and others similarly situated experienced physical pain, mental anguish, and the risk of premature death.
The Department moved to be dismissed as a defendant, arguing that Armor, not the Department, provided medical services, and that the Department could not be held liable on a theory of respondeat superior. On December 11, 2012, the court denied the Department’s motion. 2012 WL 6151967. 10 months later, on October 4, 2013, the court granted Armor’s motion to dismiss because Armor’s contract with the Department had expired. Corizon Health, which had assumed the contract to provide medical services at the prison, was subsequently named as a defendant.
From 2013 to 2015, the parties engaged in extensive and contentious discovery in preparation for trial scheduled in December 2015. The court issued multiple discovery-related opinions, which are posted in the “Documents” section of this case.
On November 20, 2014, the court granted class certification, certifying a class of all women who then resided or would in the future reside at the Fluvanna Correctional Center for Women and who had sought, were then seeking, or would in the future seek medical care for serious medical need. 2014 WL 6609087. Five days later, on November 25, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, stating that prison officials had a non-delegable constitutional duty to provide adequate medical treatment, that the plaintiffs’ specific health conditions constituted serious medical needs, and that deliberate indifference to those needs was a violation of the Eighth Amendment. 2014 WL 6680691.
The same day, the parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement in principle. The parties informed the court on April 21, 2015 that though a formal written settlement was still in progress, they had agreed that constitutionally appropriate care was required.
A final settle agreement was submitted to the court on September 15, 2015; the court gave preliminary approval the following day. Notice of the proposed settlement was distributed to each prisoner at the prison. The court conducted a fairness hearing on November 9, 2015. On February 5, 2016, the court approved the settlement. 2016 WL 452164.
The settlement agreement provided for comprehensive changes to the medical care system at the prison, and a monitor to oversee implementation. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the agreement, which would last at least three years. After three years, the agreement would terminate when the monitor found that the Department had provided constitutionally adequate medical care on a consistent basis for at least one year. The agreement also required the state to pay $1.5 million for plaintiff attorneys’ fees.
On September 5, 2017, the plaintiffs sought for the court to hold the defendants in contempt, for repeatedly falling short of their obligations regarding the quantity and quality of medical care provided in the prison. On June 12, 2018, the court ordered the defendants to show cause why they should not be held in contempt.
The court entered an injunction against the defendants on January 2, 2019, explaining that they were in violation of the settlement agreement’s terms requiring them to provide constitutionally adequate medical care to the plaintiffs. The injunction was meant to remedy the violation of the plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment rights as provided for by the parties in the agreement, and this injunction was the least intrusive means necessary to do so. The injunction required the defendants, within 45 days, to give the prison’s nurses training necessary to give adequate medical care. The court also withdrew its June 12 show-cause order regarding contempt.
On January 30, 2019, the defendants moved to alter the injunction. They claimed, among other things, that only pharmacists and physicians (not nurses) could dispense medication, and that the injunction had essentially rewritten the settlement agreement. The court granted the defendants’ motion, in part, on May 22, 2019. 391 F.Supp.3d 610. The defendants appealed this partial modification (Fourth Circuit docket number 19-1687), and the plaintiffs cross-appealed (Fourth Circuit docket number 19-1719).
Prior to the district court’s ruling, on April 30, 2019, an individual plaintiff filed an emergency motion to enforce the injunction: the prison’s “continued and demonstrated failures to appropriate[ly] manage [her] medication” were a threat to her life. While this motion was pending, she died, 3 months before her scheduled release.
On September 17, 2019, the court directed the parties to schedule a status conference “to address any current actions requested from the Court, and any then-pending motions before the Court,” except for the plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees. After participating in the status conference, the plaintiffs filed a status report on October 23, 2019. The report, among other things, asked the court to order that “Counsel for the Parties along with [Fluvanna] medical personnel shall meet regularly to attempt to resolve any issues concerning patient care at [Fluvanna],” and “Defendants shall not unreasonably withhold information regarding patient issues raised by Plaintiffs.”
At the status hearing on October 30, 2019, the court ordered the plaintiffs to name remaining systemic issues of noncompliance at the prison that must be remedied in order to bring the prison into compliance with the settlement agreement in the next status report. On November 5, 2019, the court issued an oral order that plaintiffs address the “need for a functional Continuing Quality Improvement (CQI) program directed by a qualified expert at the [prison], as well as Plaintiffs’ ongoing need for further relief requested in part in their October 23, 2019 Status Report.” The plaintiffs addressed both issues in the status report filed on January 2, 2020. Along with the status report, the plaintiffs filed a motion for further relief, outlining the defendants’ violations of the settlement and injunction and requesting the court to order various steps to “ameliorate barriers to effective, accurate monitoring and cooperative problem-solving between the parties.”
The plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement on March 5, 2020. Although the settlement agreement entitled the plaintiffs to quarterly reports from the prison regarding its compliance with the terms of the agreement, and although the plaintiffs had made repeated requests for such reports, the prison failed to provide adequate information. The plaintiffs also sought attorneys’ fees and costs for filing this motion.
On March 16, 2020, the court granted in part the plaintiffs’ requests made in status reports as well as their motion for further relief. Among other things, the court granted the plaintiffs’ request for regular status conferences and denied their requests for a direct line of communication to the prison's medical director and for regular meetings with prison medical personnel.
On May 7, 2020, the court granted in part the plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the settlement agreement. The court ordered the parties to work cooperatively to ensure that “(1) Plaintiffs receive timely, fulsome quarterly reports and (2) Defendants not be unduly burdened with requests for performance information that are overbroad, duplicative, or of marginal utility given other sources of data and information available to Plaintiffs.” 2020 WL 2263535.
On May 28, 2020, the court ordered the defendants to pay $1.04 million in attorneys’ fees and litigation costs ($934,000 in attorneys’ fees, and $105,000 in costs). 2020 WL 3120993. The plaintiffs had sought $1.99 million.
On July 2, 2020, the court issued an order referring the case to Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe for mediation regarding the prison's failure to produce documents to the plaintiffs as ordered by the court.
The parties participated in a settlement conference on July 16 and July 27, and defendants resumed production of documents and submission of status reports. On September 28, 2020, Judge Norman K. Moon ordered the compliance monitor to propose procedures for remote monitoring, given the continued restrictions of the COVID-19 pandemic. On September 29, the court accepted the compliance monitor’s notice of resignation. After the parties had an opportunity to weigh in, the court appointed a new monitor on December 22, 2020.
On March 26, 2021, the court adopted a Report and Recommendation from Magistrate Judge Hoppe granting in part plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees for work performed to enforce compliance with the Settlement Agreement, awarding plaintiffs a total of $8,570.80.
On April 22, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court by unpublished per curiam opinion. Following oral argument in January, the court of appeals found that the district court had not abused its discretion when it determined that it could not enforce the Settlement Agreement by way of contempt proceedings, and instead chose to issue the injunction on the basis of ordinary breach of contract principles.
Defendants continue to work toward full compliance with the court’s order. In September 2023, the compliance monitor issued the Sixth Monitoring Report. The defendants then submitted a status report in October summarizing pertinent changes in compliance. They noted that the monitor had upgraded the areas of Sick Call/Access, Medications, and Accommodations to “compliant” and downgraded the areas of Chronic Care and Mortality Reviews to “partially compliant.” The parties attended a status conference on November 17, 2023.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Nate West (12/1/2014)
Sarah Prout (9/17/2015)
Jessica Kincaid (4/9/2016)
Virginia Weeks (3/15/2018)
Lisa Koo (3/3/2019)
Bogyung Lim (7/8/2020)
Grayson Metzger (3/23/2024)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4408182/parties/scott-v-clarke/
Abato, Diane Marie (Virginia)
Bauer, Mary Catherine (Virginia)
Bennett, Leonard Anthony (Virginia)
Castaneda, Brenda Erin (Virginia)
Chang, Phillip C. (District of Columbia)
Bauer, Mary Catherine (Virginia)
Bennett, Leonard Anthony (Virginia)
Castaneda, Brenda Erin (Virginia)
Charlton, Mary Frances (Virginia)
Corcoran, Debra Desmore (Virginia)
Ellis, Shannon Marie (Virginia)
Fornaci, Phillip Jerome (District of Columbia)
Golden, Deborah Maxine (District of Columbia)
Greenspan, Geri Michelle (Virginia)
Griggs, Ruth Thomas (Virginia)
Gunston, Emily Anna (Virginia)
Hanes, Elizabeth Wilson (Virginia)
Howard, Theodore Augustus (District of Columbia)
Kelly, Kristi Cahoon (Virginia)
Kutnik-Bauder, Jacqueline (Virginia)
Mincberg, Elliot M. (District of Columbia)
Missova, Mirela Emilova (Virginia)
Nash, Casey Shannon (Virginia)
Poggenklass, Robert James (Virginia)
Rolla, Kimberly Anne (Virginia)
Trodden, Erin Margaret (Virginia)
Chang, Phillip C. (District of Columbia)
Daniel, Kevin James (Virginia)
Dwyre, Kate Elizabeth (Virginia)
Isaacs, James Milburn Jr. (Virginia)
Johnson, John Chadwick (Virginia)
Londos, Katherine Cabell (Virginia)
McNelis, Edward J. III (Virginia)
Miller, Amy Elizabeth (Virginia)
Muldowney, Elizabeth Martin (Virginia)
Parsons, John Michael (Virginia)
Schnetzler, Nathan Henry (Virginia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4408182/scott-v-clarke/
Last updated Feb. 4, 2025, 11:26 p.m.
State / Territory: Virginia
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Post-PLRA enforceable consent decrees
Post-WalMart decisions on class certification
Key Dates
Filing Date: July 24, 2012
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
All women who currently reside or will in the future reside at the Fluvanna Correctional Center for Women and who have sought, are currently seeking, or will seek medical care for serious medical need
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
Armor Correctional Health Services, Inc., Private Entity/Person
Corizon Health, Inc., Private Entity/Person
Virginia Department of Corrections, State
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Amount Defendant Pays: $2,548,570.80
Order Duration: 2015 - None
Issues
General/Misc.:
Medical/Mental Health Care: