Filed Date: Nov. 7, 2007
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
On November 7, 2007, mentally ill prisoners incarcerated by the Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC") filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 et seq.; and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, against the state of Illinois. The plaintiffs, represented by the Uptown People's Law Center, Equip for Equality, and private counsel, claimed that their lack of access to adequate mental health treatment constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, and discrimination under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. They asked the Court for a judgment declaring defendants' conduct unconstitutional and an injunction against defendants' unlawful conduct.
Plaintiffs were incarcerated in various correctional centers of the IDOC. Most incoming prisoners at these facilities did not receive a meaningful mental health screening upon arrival. Additionally, the plaintiffs alleged that care of those prisoners who were identified as needing mental health care was grossly substandard. What limited care was available was provided chiefly by medication and prisoners were only infrequently able to consult with mental health professionals. Only four of the IDOC's correctional facilities offered some form of specialized mental health services. As a result of defendants' failure to reasonably accommodate plaintiffs' disabilities, the plaintiffs alleged that they experienced mental and physical pain and, in many cases, the exacerbation of existing mental illnesses.
On May 8, 2013, Judge Michael Mihm entered an interim order to facilitate a consent decree. The order required the parties to assess and negotiate the number of additional mental health staff and bed and treatment space needed, and mandated that the IDOC develop policies related to the segregation, protective custody, and discipline of mentally ill prisoners.
On December 22, 2015, the case settled. Under the terms of the settlement:
On May 10, 2016, parties filed a settlement agreement with the court. On May 23, 2016, the judge accepted the settlement with an amended settlement agreement. The agreement required IDOC to hire more mental health professionals, renovate 1258 beds, update health records to better indicate mental health problems and medication, provided staff with training in recognition and dealing with common mental disorders, provide mental health screenings for all prisoners upon, admission, conduct bimonthly review of prisoner mental health, conduct monthly review of prison mental health for those in segregation, provide for an initial mental health review within 7 days of putting a prison in segregation, and establish a referral program to all prisoners, staff, and those close to prisoners to refer prison for a mental health checkup. The settlement also provided that plaintiffs would be awarded attorney's fees, that the court retained jurisdiction for three years after the acceptance of the settlement, and that parties would try to resolve issues before taking the issue to the court.
Plaintiffs were awarded attorney's fees of $3.8 million, with half paid immediately on February 10, 2017. Multiple prisoners filed complaints alleging that the settlement was not being properly followed throughout 2017. The court indicated that complaints should be handled by the Department of Corrections grievance process.
A monitor was appointed: forensic psychiatrist Pablo Stewart. On June 5, 2017, Dr. Stewart submitted his first annual report. The report noted that although the defendants made many significant improvements to the mental health care delivery system during the first year of the settlement, the defendants continued to have challenges in meeting the first-year requirements. Specifically, the report noted the grossly insufficient and extremely poor quality of psychiatric services, which negatively impacted all aspects of the settlement and contributed to the defendants being non-compliant in the vast majority of areas.
On October 10, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement in light of the defendants' alleged violations of the settlement terms. The court held an evidentiary hearing on December 12, 2017, which it continued in February and March 2018. On May 25, 2018, the court issued a preliminary injunction enforcing the settlement agreement and imposing additional requirements and deadlines to bring the defendants into constitutional compliance. The court found that there had been a systemic constitutional deficiency in addressing the psychiatric and mental health professional staffing shortage. The preliminary injunction was set to expire after 90 days.
On June 6, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a permanent injunction, which the court granted on October 30. The court found that the defendants had been deliberately indifferent to the medical needs of the plaintiffs in medication management, mental health treatment in segregation, mental health treatment on crisis watch, mental health evaluations, and mental health treatment plans within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment. Further, the court found that the plaintiffs have suffered or will suffer irreparable injury if a permanent injunction was not issued. The court deferred entering specific injunctive relief, and instead allowed the defendants to submit a proposal to address their constitutional deficiencies, which they submitted on November 13, 2018. The court approved the content of the permanent injunction on December 20, 2018. The permanent injunction contained staffing requirements, parameters for class members placed on mental health crisis watch, parameters for class members placed in segregation, parameters for class members prescribed psychotropic medication, and provisions on treatment plans. The injunction required the defendants to submit quarterly status reports, as well as quality assurance audits at least every 90 days. The injunction is to remain in place for two years.
The defendants appealed the permanent injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on January 23, 2019. On April 15, the court of appeals remanded the case to the district court for the limited purpose of permitting the district court to modify the preliminary injunction in order to conform to the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.
On February 26, 2019, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the defendants' request to modify the injunction (making limited changes to three provisions of the injunction), denying the defendants’ motion for the court to reconsider its injunction orders, denying the defendants’ motion for partial stay, and granting the plaintiffs’ § 1988 petition for attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $841,137.98 in fees and $31,864.77 in expenses.
On April 22, 2019, the court consolidated the above injunctions and post-judgment orders (from October 30, 2018, December 20, 2018, and February 26, 2019) into a single, final permanent injunction. On May 22, 2019, the defendants appealed that final permanent injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
On May 28, 2019, the Monitor submitted his third annual report. The report noted that although IDOC had greatly improved its ability to care for mentally ill offenders and was found to be in substantial compliance in eleven areas, a major problem preventing IDOC from being substantially compliant with the entire settlement agreement was inadequate staffing. The report also noted that IDOC still had much work to do with mental health evaluations and referrals, treatment planning, medication, segregation, confidentiality, use of force, and discipline.
While the appeal was pending with the Seventh Circuit, the parties filed an amended settlement agreement which modified the jurisdictional provisions of the agreement. Those modifications terminated the court’s jurisdiction on April 23, 2021, over any provision that the IDOC was in direct compliance with and extended jurisdiction over those provisions that it was not. Although the amended agreement also specifically referenced the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), the requirements to amend an agreement under the PLRA were not met.
On January 20, 2022, the Seventh Circuit vacated the permanent injunction, reasoning that the injunction was not sufficiently narrow and that, regardless, IDOC had indeed made reasonable efforts to mitigate the Eighth Amendment violations. The Seventh Circuit’s reversal order did not remand the case back to the district court for further proceedings. The Seventh Circuit also clarified that the parties’ settlement agreement was actually a consent decree; consequently, it was subject to judicial enforcement, and any modifications to the decree were governed by the PLRA. Finally, the Seventh Circuit found that the consent decree’s terms did not require the court to extend its jurisdiction and therefore jurisdiction was set to expire by the decree’s own terms. 22 F.4th 703.
Following the Seventh Circuit’s ruling, the plaintiffs filed multiple amended complaints containing claims identical to their earlier claims while also adding Equal Protection and Due Process violation claims (under the Fourteenth Amendment). The Plaintiffs also added Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker as a defendant. While the defendants moved to dismiss the amended claims, they did not raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. However, on September 18, 2023, the court raised jurisdiction sua sponte and requested briefing on the issue.
Following briefing and argument, the court dismissed the case on October 23, 2023, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court reasoned that under the consent decree, jurisdiction terminated three years after the approval date of May 23, 2016, so long as IDOC was in substantial compliance with those provisions at the time of termination. During those three years, the plaintiffs filed for and were granted permanent injunctive relief on five areas of noncompliance with the settlement agreement; while the court retained jurisdiction over those five areas, the court’s jurisdiction as to the remaining areas terminated on May 23, 2019, by the agreement’s terms. As discussed above, Defendants appealed the permanent injunction and, in the interim, entered into an Amended Consent Decree.
However, the court further reasoned the amended decree was likely jurisdictionally deficient. The court explained that its “jurisdiction had already terminated . . . over a year earlier on May 23, 2019” and, even if the court’s jurisdiction persisted over the five areas subject to the permanent injunction, “those areas were on appeal, divesting [the] Court of jurisdiction”. Moreover, jurisdiction aside, the PLRA requirements to amend the decree were not made. Consequently, the court’s jurisdiction terminated following the Seventh Circuit’s reversal of its injunction. As such, the court dismissed with prejudice the claims embodied in the consent decree and dismissed without prejudice the newly-added claims in the most recent Fifth Amended Complaint.
On November 1, 2023, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Seventh Circuit. The case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Nate West (10/4/2014)
David Smellie (3/30/2017)
Eva Richardson (5/29/2019)
Jonah Feitelson (2/12/2020)
Alex Levin (1/1/2024)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6236519/parties/rasho-v-walker/
Baker, Harold Albert (Illinois)
Antholt, Amanda C. (Illinois)
Bautista, Laura K (Illinois)
Bean, Alexander B. (Illinois)
Bedell, Lindsey A. (Illinois)
Bratkiewicz, Jeffrey L. (Illinois)
Carey, Charles Edward (Illinois)
Corrigan, Terence J. (Illinois)
Dickson, Charles Dickson (Illinois)
Francolla, Brian Christopher (Illinois)
Gibbs, Francesca Bridgette (Illinois)
Halliday, Patrick E (Illinois)
Higgerson, Christopher L. (Illinois)
Hoelzer, John David (Illinois)
Keating, Timothy P. (Illinois)
Lawson, Elizabeth C. (Illinois)
Lombardo, Joseph J. (Illinois)
Lu, Terry Shing-Ren (Illinois)
Meloy, Dorianne Avery (Illinois)
Merritt, Matthew J. (Illinois)
Migchelbrink, Amanda Marie (Illinois)
O'Neill, Terrence M. (Illinois)
Rosencrantz, Caryn Anne (Illinois)
Silverberg, Steven Mark (Illinois)
Smith, Katherine Elizabeth (Illinois)
Smith, Brian Michael (Illinois)
Strauss, Peter James (Illinois)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6236519/rasho-v-walker/
Last updated March 17, 2024, 3:14 a.m.
State / Territory: Illinois
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Nov. 7, 2007
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiffs are mentally ill inmates incarcerated at various correctional facilities of the Illinois Department of Corrections.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: Yes
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701
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:
Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Amount Defendant Pays: 3,800,000
Order Duration: 2016 - 2019
Issues
General/Misc.:
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Disability and Disability Rights:
Discrimination Basis:
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
Medical/Mental Health Care: