Filed Date: June 1, 2011
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case concerns conditions at the Henley-Young Juvenile Justice Center (“Henley-Young”) in Jackson, Mississippi. On June 1, 2011, a child imprisoned at Henley-Young filed this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi against Hinds County, Mississippi (“County”) under 42 U.S.C § 1983. The plaintiff, represented by attorneys from the Southern Poverty Law Center, alleged that the County's confinement policies and practices violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged excessive confinement in cells, inadequate mental health care, verbal abuse, and inadequate rehabilitation efforts. The plaintiff sought class certification, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and damages. The case was assigned to District Judge Daniel P. Jordan, III and Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball.
Within the same week of filing, the complaint was amended to include two plaintiffs (Disability Rights Mississippi and an additional child imprisoned at Henley-Young). The amended complaint included additional causes of action under the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act of 1986, the Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights Program, and the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act (together, these are the “Protection and Advocacy statutes”). The amended complaint also alleged that the County violated the plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by preventing them from speaking with non-attorney representatives, thus denying them access to the courts.
On July 25, 2011, Judge Jordan granted a preliminary injunction, making previous state court orders that limited Disability Rights Mississippi’s access to youth in Henley-Young unenforceable because of the Protection and Advocacy statutes mentioned above. The court ordered the parties to agree on and submit a draft for a preliminary injunction. The next month, the court signed an injunction giving Disability Rights Mississippi much greater access to Henley-Young and its residents.
The parties began settlement negotiations and reached an agreement in early 2012. On March 28, 2012, the court approved the settlement agreement and certified a settlement class of "all children who are currently, or who will in the future be, confined at the Henley-Young Juvenile Justice Center." In accordance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), the agreement would terminate at the end of two years unless the court made written findings that relief remained necessary to correct a current and ongoing violation. The consent decree required Henley-Young to change its intake procedures to include health screening and provide greater access to medication; to improve staffing and lower crowding; to allow youth more time out of their cells and provide educational and rehabilitative programming; to make punishment/discipline less severe; to provide for better hygiene, food, and clothing; to allow more visitation with family and implement policies preventing verbal abuse by staff and suicide by youth; and to allow for continued access to the center by the plaintiffs. In light of the consent decree, the court dismissed the case with prejudice on March 28, 2012.
The monitor issued several status reports from 2012 to 2014. In February of 2014, the plaintiffs moved to extend the agreement and require the County to pay attorneys' fees. On April 25, 2014, the court extended the agreement, finding that the County had not substantially complied with its provisions. Judge Jordan also found that because the agreement was a consent decree, and not a private agreement between the parties, the court could hold the County in contempt and require it to pay attorneys' fees. The court held the County in contempt, but did not require it to pay fees on that date. The County was given until March 28, 2016, to comply.
In August 2014, the court's monitor issued a status report recognizing significant but partial progress in compliance with the terms of the consent decree. Status reports were issued through the rest of 2014, 2015, and the first part of 2016. On January 27, 2016, the monitor noted continued compliance with the agreement and that it was the first time that Henley-Young had "adequate and stable leadership."
On March 25, 2016, Judge Jordan extended the consent decree to March 28, 2018, at the request of both parties. On April 15, 2016, the Hinds County Youth Court, led by Judge William Skinner, filed a motion to intervene, arguing that the settlement agreement's provision allowing Henley-Young to release juveniles without the Hinds County Youth Court’s authority violated Mississippi law. Judge Skinner also filed a related lawsuit in state court. The parties then jointly moved for an injunction enjoining any state court action, arguing that the consent decree was no broader than needed to effectuate federal law. On May 25, 2016, Judge Jordan issued an agreed order maintaining the status quo and enjoining the state court proceeding until a ruling on the merits was issued.
On June 27, 2016, Hinds County Youth Court agreed to withdraw as intervenor. The parties also amended the original consent decree to delete a provision restricting stays at the facility to 21 days and allocating funding from the Youth Court budget for mental health services at Henley-Young. The parties agreed that the Hinds County Youth Court would have jurisdiction over releases after the 21-day period at the facility and only allow detention beyond the 21-day period if no other facilities were available and the child was referred for health services.
As evidenced by the tenth and eleventh monitoring reports, the County made meaningful progress during 2017. However, the County had still not met all of the required objectives by the end of the extended two-year decree, so Judge Jordan granted a joint motion to extend the consent decree on March 30, 2018. Disability Rights Mississippi also filed a motion to extend the consent decree on October 31, 2018, in anticipation of unremediated issues.
At a settlement conference on March 19, 2019, the Court found that the thirteenth monitoring report included recommendations straying beyond the core objective of the remedy, such as hiring a full-time PhD-level clinical psychologist. The parties thereafter met to revise and issue a third amended consent decree, which removed some objectives determined to be nonessential. The Court approved the third amended consent decree and extended the enforcement period until March 28, 2021.
On April 2, 2021, the court again extended the enforcement period of the third amended consent decree until March 28, 2023. Judge Jordan acknowledged the County’s progress in complying with the consent decree, but held that more time was needed to reach complete compliance.
Citing unsatisfactory compliance, on March 18, 2022, the plaintiffs asked the court to order the County to show cause why it should not be held in contempt of the third amended consent decree. On the same day, the County moved to modify or terminate the extended third amended consent decree, arguing that ongoing violations of federal law at Henley-Young no longer existed.
Under the PLRA (18 U.S.C. § 3626(e)), a motion to modify or terminate a consent decree becomes an automatic stay 30 days after the motion is filed, until the court enters a final ruling. Recognizing that the County’s motion to modify or terminate the consent decree would trigger an automatic stay, the plaintiffs moved for clarification or a status conference on April 6, 2022. They later filed an urgent and necessitous motion to postpone the stay, on April 21, 2022.
On April 26, 2022, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a status conference but denied the motion to postpone the stay. Judge Jordan ruled that the plaintiffs should have asked to postpone the stay before it had begun because once the stay automatically goes into effect under 18 U.S.C. § 3626(e), the court cannot postpone it. The court held that the County did not have to let the monitor into the Henley-Young facility, as long as the stay continued.
The court held several status conferences in the second half of 2022, after which the plaintiffs agreed to terminating the consent decree. On October 13, 2022, Judge Jordan granted the County’s motion to terminate the consent decree without prejudice to any future claims by Henley-Young detainees. The court did not officially close the case, but no docket activity occurred between the consent decree’s termination in October 2022 and November 21, 2023.
Summary Authors
Maurice Youkanna (6/12/2014)
Craig Streit (10/30/2016)
Erica Becker (3/14/2019)
Justin Hill (10/30/2019)
Michelle Wolk (3/15/2022)
Sophia Acker (11/21/2023)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5009989/parties/jh-v-hinds-county-mississippi/
Ball, F. Keith (Mississippi)
Anderson, Victoria McCaa (Mississippi)
Bamzai, Vidhi (Mississippi)
Bardwell, William B. (Mississippi)
Anderson, Garrett Alan (Mississippi)
Anderson, Victoria McCaa (Mississippi)
Bardwell, William B. (Mississippi)
Carroll, Vanessa (Mississippi)
Cockrell, Corrie Wynette (Mississippi)
Douglas, Nathaniel (District of Columbia)
Hardage, Frances Kay (Mississippi)
Johnson, Elissa F. (Mississippi)
Jones, Leslie Faith (Mississippi)
Mitchell, John W. (District of Columbia)
Owens, Jody E. II (Mississippi)
PHV, Ashley Nicole (Mississippi)
Stokes-Hough, Keisha L. (Mississippi)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5009989/jh-v-hinds-county-mississippi/
Last updated March 20, 2025, 8:35 a.m.
State / Territory: Mississippi
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Post-PLRA enforceable consent decrees
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 1, 2011
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Children who are currently, or who will in the future, be confined at the Henley-Young Juvenile Justice Center, and Disability Rights Mississippi
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
Hinds County (Jackson, Hinds), County
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 15001 et seq.
Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness (PAIMI) Act, 42 U.S.C. § 10801
Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights (PAIR), 29 U.S.C. § 794e
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Order Duration: 2012 - 2023
Issues
General/Misc.:
Access to lawyers or judicial system
Parents (visitation, involvement)
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Disability and Disability Rights:
Intellectual/developmental disability, unspecified
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Assault/abuse by non-staff (facilities)
Assault/abuse by staff (facilities)
Suicide prevention (facilities)
Medical/Mental Health Care: