Case: Richardson v. Monroe County Sheriff
1:08-cv-00174 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Filed Date: Feb. 13, 2008
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
On February 13, 2008, a prisoner at the Monroe County Jail filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Monroe County. The plaintiff, represented by the ACLU of Indiana, sought declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging violations of Indiana state law and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that the living areas in the jail were grossly overcrowded, leading to unsanitary and dangerous living conditions.
The plaintiff claimed the existence of overcrowding that harmed prisoners. The prisoners were forced to sleep on the floor of a gymnasium. The facilities had only two showers and limited toilets for over 200 prisoners. The overcrowding led to increased tensions, frequently erupting into violence. Cell blocks and showers were unsanitary and food was served cold. Finally, there was so much crowding that there was no space to engage in walking or exercising during the day, and the prisoners were not taken for outdoor recreation.
On August 4, 2008, the District Court (Judge Richard Young) denied the defendants' motion to dismiss and granted the plaintiff's motion to certify the case as a class action, defining the class as “any and all persons currently confined, or who will in the future be confined, in the Monroe County Jail.” 2008 WL 3084766. The Court (Judge Young) found that although the plaintiff's individual claims for relief were moot, he had standing to represent the class.
On August 14, 2009, the parties entered a stipulation to a private settlement agreement under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants agreed to make reasonable efforts to continue to meet with the judges of the Monroe Circuit Court to discuss ways of keeping the jail population under its capacity. The defendants also agreed that if the population exceeded the number of available beds for a specified period of time, the jail would take reasonable steps, including informing the board of commissioners, transferring prisoners, and requesting orders to release prisoners to reduce the population. Additionally, the defendants agreed not to accept prisoners from other counties on a per diem basis and to only accept Monroe County prisoners that the jail was legally required to accept. Under the settlement, the prisoners were granted at least two hours each week of vigorous physical exercise and were guaranteed reasonable sleeping arrangements, requiring the jail to have stacking bunks when they run out of permanent beds. The parties also agreed to reporting requirements. Finally, defendants agreed to pay the plaintiff's attorneys fees and costs for $20,000. The parties agreed that absent a court order or written agreement, the settlement would remain in effect until October 1, 2011.
On September 30, 2011, the District Court (Judge Young) granted the plaintiff's motion to modify the parties' agreement and extend the private settlement agreement. The District Court (Judge Young) granted similar motions to modify the parties’ agreement and extend the private settlement agreement on October 1, 2012, September 18, 2014, and September 14, 2016, thereby extending the agreement to October 1, 2018. The October 1, 2018 extended the previous settlement agreement and additionally required a study as to whether a new jail facility was necessary.
On January 15, 2019, the Court acknowledged that the parties had once again extended their settlement agreement to January 14, 2021, and the court modified its past orders to provide that the parties move for dismissal of the case on January 14, 2021. As an additional condition on the settlement agreement, a study of the Monroe County criminal justice system and alternatives to incarceration was required. On January 12, 2026 the court granted a 90 day expansion from the prior expiration date of January 15, 2026, which was granted in 2024. The new expiration date is April 15, 2026. As of February 17, 2026 the case is on going.
Summary Authors
Priyah Kaul (9/22/2014)
Emma Himes (2/13/2020)
Hatcher Childress (3/1/2026)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4752545/parties/richardson-v-monroe-county-sheriff/
Dinsmore, Mark. J. (Indiana)
Bleisch, Joshua (Indiana)
Falk, Kenneth J. (Indiana)
Schilling, David Brian (Indiana)
Semler, Ronald J (Indiana)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4752545/richardson-v-monroe-county-sheriff/
Last updated July 29, 2026, 3:07 a.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Post-PLRA Jail and Prison Private Settlement Agreements
Key Dates
Filing Date: Feb. 13, 2008
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Any and all persons currently confined, or who will in the future be confined, in the Monroe County Jail
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
County
Monroe County Sheriff
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
Southern District of Indiana 1:08-cv-00174
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Amount Defendant Pays: $20000
Order Duration: 2009 - 2020
Issues
General/Misc.:
Food service / nutrition / hydration
Sanitation / living conditions
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Crowding: Post-PLRA Population Cap
Medical/Mental Health Care:
Case Summary of Richardson v. Monroe County Sheriff, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/12861/ (last updated 3/1/2026).