Case: Rasho v. Walker

1:07-cv-01298 | U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois

Filed Date: Nov. 7, 2007

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

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:

For the first time ever, Illinois would provide both long-term and acute care in residential treatment centers for prisoners who are so seriously mentally ill that they require hospitalization. Previously, these very ill people were housed in isolation.
More than 300 new clinical staff would be hired to treat prisoners with serious mental illnesses, along with over 400 new security staff to work at the new residential treatment units. This would allow the state to provide group therapy and one-on-one therapy for prisoners.
IDOC agreed to review the mental health of all prisoners with more than 60 days left in solitary, to determine if they should be given early release. IDOC also agreed to release from solitary all prisoners with serious mental illnesses who are confined there for minor, non-violent offenses, and in the future to consider mental health before sentencing someone to segregation.
Prisoners with mental illnesses who were in solitary confinement for over 60 days would have their out-of-cell time increased from less than an hour a day to 20 hours a week.Construction costs for the new facilities were estimated to be $40 million and the new personnel costs were expected to be approximately $40 million annually.

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.

	Document
1:07-cv-01298 1:11-cv-01308	Docket [PACER]	June 10, 2019	June 10, 2019 Docket
1 1:07-cv-01298	Complaint	Nov. 6, 2007	Nov. 6, 2007 Complaint
43 1:07-cv-01298	Motion for Preliminary Injunction	April 25, 2008	April 25, 2008 Pleading / Motion / Brief
54 1:07-cv-01298	Amended Class Action Complaint	May 4, 2009	May 4, 2009 Complaint
82 1:07-cv-01298	Plaintiffs’ and State Defendants’ Proposed Case Management Plan	Nov. 19, 2010	Nov. 19, 2010 Pleading / Motion / Brief
83 1:07-cv-01298	Stipulated Motion for Class Certification for Settlement Purposes	Nov. 19, 2010	Nov. 19, 2010 Pleading / Motion / Brief
95 1:07-cv-01298	Second Amended Class Action Complaint	April 29, 2011	April 29, 2011 Complaint
95 1:07-cv-01298	Second Amended Class Action Complaint Rasho v.Walker	April 29, 2011	April 29, 2011 Complaint
97 1:07-cv-01298	Order on Stipulated Motion for Class Certification for Settlement Purposes	May 6, 2011	May 6, 2011 Order/Opinion
112 1:07-cv-01298	Motion for Entry of an Agreed Scheduling Order Solely with Respect to Severed Count VI [With Order Granting Attached]	Aug. 8, 2011	Aug. 8, 2011 Pleading / Motion / Brief

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT against all defendants, filed by Ashoor Rasho. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2, # 2 Part 3, # 3 Part 4)(RK, ilcd) (Entered: 11/08/2007) 1 Part 2 View on RECAP 2 Part 3 View on RECAP 3 Part 4 View on RECAP	Nov. 7, 2007	Nov. 7, 2007 Clearinghouse
2	PETITION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS and Complaint against all defendants, filed by Ashoor Rasho.(RK, ilcd) (Entered: 11/08/2007)	Nov. 7, 2007	Nov. 7, 2007 PACER
3	MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 11/26/2007 (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 11/08/2007)	Nov. 7, 2007	Nov. 7, 2007 PACER
4	Letter from CDIL Clerk to PCC requesting trust fund ledgers for Inmate Ashoor Rasho for the period 6/7/07 thru 11/7/07. (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 11/08/2007)	Nov. 8, 2007	Nov. 8, 2007 PACER
5	WRIT of Video issued for Ashoor Rasho B38970 for hearing before Judge Baker on 12/17/07 at 1:30 PM. (Writ faxed to PCC, Urbana Video Clerk and IDOC Video Scheduler). (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 11/09/2007)	Nov. 9, 2007	Nov. 9, 2007 PACER
6	Prisoner Trust Fund Ledgers submitted by Trust Fund Office of Pontiac Correctional Center on behalf of Ashoor Rasho for the period from 6/7/07 through 11/7/07, showing a negative trust fund balance of -$858.27. (ML, ilcd) Modified on 11/16/2007 to reflect negative balance.(ML, ilcd). (Entered: 11/16/2007)	Nov. 14, 2007	Nov. 14, 2007 PACER
7	Request for production of documents by Ashoor Rasho (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 11/19/2007)	Nov. 16, 2007	Nov. 16, 2007 PACER
8	Letter from plaintiff requesting copy of complaint be sent back to him. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 11/19/2007)	Nov. 16, 2007	Nov. 16, 2007 Clearinghouse
9	MERIT REVIEW AND ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 12/21/07. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:(1). The petition to proceed in forma pauperis [d\e 2] is allowed and the clerk is directed to notify the trust officer at the plaintiffs place of incarceration to withhold appropriate payments from the plaintiffs trust fund until the court fees are paid in full;(2). The motion for appointment of counsel [d\e 3] is denied at this time but may be renewed once the defendants have answered and scheduling has been established;(3). The complaint states a claim for relief within notice pleading requirements for violation of the Eighth Amendment rights to be free from indifference to a serious medical need and cruel and unusual punishment. And the case shall proceed on that basis unless the parties can articulate a different claim to the court;(4). The case is assigned to the Magistrate Judge for scheduling and provision for entries of appearance and waiver of process. (cc: plaintiff/IDOC)(KB, ilcd) (Entered: 12/21/2007)	Dec. 21, 2007	Dec. 21, 2007 PACER
10	MOTION to reconsider to award plaintiff damages and sue defendants in their individual capacities by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 1/14/2008 (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 12/27/2007)	Dec. 26, 2007	Dec. 26, 2007 Clearinghouse
11	CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER #1 Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 1/29/08. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: (1) The case is assigned to the magistrate judge for scheduling and for an order that the filing fee be collected from the plaintiff's trust fund as provided in 28 U.S.C. §1915; (2) The clerk shall send notice of suit and waiver of process to the litigation coordinator at Pontiac for service on Melody Ford; (3) On the court's own motion 07-1298 and 08-1008 are consolidated and all docketing shall be done in the 07-1298 case; (4) The clerk is directed to schedule these combined cases for further Rule 16 hearing as soon as practicable after the entry of appearance of Mark Kadish, Esq. as pro bono counsel for the plaintiff; (5) All pending motions in 08-1008 [d/e 2, 3, 4] are denied as rendered moot by this order.(cc: Plaintiff)(KB, ilcd) (Entered: 01/29/2008)	Jan. 29, 2008	Jan. 29, 2008 PACER
12	PRISONER SCHEDULING ORDER Entered by Magistrate Judge John A. Gorman on 1/30/08. Clerk is directed to prepare for each deft a notice of lawsuit and request for waiver of service of summons and waiver of service of summons. Clerk to mail said forms, a copy of the complaint, and this scheduling order to each defendant. Cause set for further scheduling procedures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16. Rule 16 Scheduling Conference set for 1:30 p.m. on 4/29/2008 by video conference (court to initiate conference) before Judge Harold A. Baker.Plaintiff to notify the court of any change in his mailing address and telephone number. Failure to notify the court of any change in the mailing address will result in dismissal of this lawsuit, with prejudice. Clerk to notify parties of their option to consent to disposition of this case before the U.S. Magistrate Judge (form enclosed). (cc: plaintiff/IDOC/Records Dept) (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 01/30/2008)	Jan. 30, 2008	Jan. 30, 2008 PACER
13	REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SERVICE and Notice of Lawsuit sent to Defendant Roger E Walker, Jr. on 1/30/08. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 01/30/2008)	Jan. 30, 2008	Jan. 30, 2008 PACER
14	REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SERVICE and Notice of Lawsuit sent to Defendant Eddie Jones, Warden on 1/30/08. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 01/30/2008)	Jan. 30, 2008	Jan. 30, 2008 PACER
15	REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SERVICE and Notice of Lawsuit sent to Defendant Dr Willard Elyea on 1/30/08. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 01/30/2008)	Jan. 30, 2008	Jan. 30, 2008 PACER
16	REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SERVICE and Notice of Lawsuit sent to Defendant Dr Navarro, Chief Medical Health Services of IDOC on 1/30/08. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 01/30/2008)	Jan. 30, 2008	Jan. 30, 2008 PACER
17	REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SERVICE and Notice of Lawsuit sent to Defendant Dr. Sylvia Mahone on 1/30/08. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 01/30/2008)	Jan. 30, 2008	Jan. 30, 2008 PACER
18	REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SERVICE and Notice of Lawsuit sent to Defendant Dr John Garlic on 1/30/08. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 01/30/2008)	Jan. 30, 2008	Jan. 30, 2008 PACER
19	REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SERVICE and Notice of Lawsuit sent to Defendant Dr Michael F Massa on 1/30/08. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 01/30/2008)	Jan. 30, 2008	Jan. 30, 2008 PACER
20	REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SERVICE and Notice of Lawsuit sent to Defendant Department of Corrections on 1/30/08. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 01/30/2008)	Jan. 30, 2008	Jan. 30, 2008 PACER
21	REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SERVICE and Notice of Lawsuit sent to Defendant Melody Ford, Chairperson Administrative Review Board IDOC (08-1008) on 1/30/08. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 01/30/2008)	Jan. 30, 2008	Jan. 30, 2008 PACER
22	Letter re: information (address etc ) on the attorney appointed for plaintiff. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 02/06/2008)	Feb. 5, 2008	Feb. 5, 2008 PACER
23	WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed on defendant Roger E Walker, Jr. Roger E Walker, Jr waiver signed on 2/5/2008, answer due 4/7/2008. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 02/06/2008)	Feb. 6, 2008	Feb. 6, 2008 PACER
24	WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Defendant Roger E Walker, Jr. Defendant served 2/5/08. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 02/14/2008)	Feb. 14, 2008	Feb. 14, 2008 PACER
25	WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Michael F Massa. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 02/19/2008)	Feb. 19, 2008	Feb. 19, 2008 PACER
26	WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Eddie Jones. Defendant Eddie Jones served on 2/7/2008, answer due 4/7/2008. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 02/19/2008)	Feb. 19, 2008	Feb. 19, 2008 PACER
27	WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by John Garlic. Defendant John Garlic served on 2/13/2008, answer due 4/14/2008. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 02/19/2008)	Feb. 19, 2008	Feb. 19, 2008 PACER
28	REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SERVICE and Notice of Lawsuit sent to Defendant Melody Ford on 2/20/08 to new address in Springfield, IL. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 02/20/2008)	Feb. 20, 2008	Feb. 20, 2008 PACER
29	WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Melody Ford. Melody Ford waiver sent on 2/20/2008, answer due 4/21/2008. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 02/25/2008)	Feb. 22, 2008	Feb. 22, 2008 PACER
30	WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed on Dr. Willard Elyea. Dr. Willard Elyea waiver sent on 1/30/08, executed on 2/12/2008, answer due 4/14/2008. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 03/04/2008)	March 4, 2008	March 4, 2008 PACER
31	WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed on Sylvia Mahone. Sylvia Mahone waiver sent on 1/30/08, served on 2/14/2008, answer due 4/14/2008. (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 03/04/2008)	March 4, 2008	March 4, 2008 PACER
32	NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Theresa M Powell on behalf of Sylvia Mahone, Michael F Massa (Powell, Theresa) (Entered: 03/11/2008)	March 11, 2008	March 11, 2008 PACER
33	NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by David M Walter on behalf of Sylvia Mahone, Michael F Massa (Walter, David) (Entered: 03/11/2008)	March 11, 2008	March 11, 2008 PACER
34	ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Defendants Sylvia Mahone, Michael F Massa.(Powell, Theresa) (Entered: 03/11/2008)	March 11, 2008	March 11, 2008 PACER
35	MOTION for Protective Order HIPAA by Defendants Sylvia Mahone, Michael F Massa. Responses due by 3/28/2008 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Exhibit A)(Powell, Theresa) (Entered: 03/11/2008) 1 Text of Proposed Order Exhibit A View on PACER	March 11, 2008	March 11, 2008 PACER
36	MOTION to Continue/Reschedule Video Conference by Plaintiff Ashoor Rasho. Responses due by 4/3/2008 (Attachments: # 1 part 2, # 2 part 3)(HK, ilcd) (Entered: 03/17/2008) 1 part 2 View on PACER 2 part 3 View on PACER	March 17, 2008	March 17, 2008 PACER
37	Letter re: Plaintiff from inmate at PCC (Attachments: # 1 part 2, # 2 part 3) (KB, ilcd) (Entered: 03/26/2008) 1 part 2 View on PACER 2 part 3 View on PACER	March 26, 2008	March 26, 2008 PACER
38	ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Defendants Roger E Walker, Jr, Eddie Jones, Willard Elyea,. Navarro, Melody Ford, John Garlic.(Hildebrand, Heidi) (Entered: 03/31/2008)	March 31, 2008	March 31, 2008 PACER
39	ANSWER to 1 Complaint 07-1298 consol w/ 08-1008 by Defendants Roger E Walker, Jr, Eddie Jones, Willard Elyea,. Navarro, Melody Ford, John Garlic.(Hildebrand, Heidi) (Entered: 03/31/2008)	March 31, 2008	March 31, 2008 PACER
40	MOTION to Amend/Correct 38 Answer to Complaint by Defendants Roger E Walker, Jr, Eddie Jones, Willard Elyea,. Navarro, Melody Ford, John Garlic. Responses due by 4/17/2008 (Attachments: # 1 proposed Amended Answer)(Hildebrand, Heidi) (Entered: 03/31/2008) 1 proposed Amended Answer View on PACER	March 31, 2008	March 31, 2008 PACER

Case: Rasho v. Walker

1:07-cv-01298 | U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois

Case Summary

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Docket

Case Details