Filed Date: May 1, 2013
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
On May 1, 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice, on behalf of inmates from the Miami-Dade County Corrections and Rehabilitation Department Jail (MDRC), filed a suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against officials from Miami-Dade County for alleged violation of the inmates' Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The suit alleged that the defendants failed to provide suicide protection and mental health care to the inmates, causing the inmates to suffer serious harm.
On May 22, 2013, the Court (Judge William J. Zloch) entered a consent decree that revised the standard of medical care to be provided by the MDCR facilities and monitoring of the implementation of this care. The consent decree also included compliance with federal standards of mental health care and suicide prevention. The case was dismissed without prejudice.
The U.S. submitted a series of eight status reports regarding compliance between November 2013 and January 2017. The parties held status conferences with the court following each report. The reports found that the County was substantially not in compliance with the consent agreement. On December 7, 2014, the parties submitted the first revised summary action plan that itemized each compliance issue with specific dates. The dates of compliance spanned from May 11, 2015 to November 30, 2016. Monitoring continued in the interim. Compliance was not reached by the deadline and parties submitted a second revised summary action plan on May 18, 2016; it was approved on May 23, 2016. The dates in the second revised summary action plan spanned July 2016 to February 2017. A full compliance tour was scheduled for September 2017 but was rescheduled for December 2017 due to Hurricane Irma.
On January 11, 2017, Judge Zloch recused himself and the case was reassigned to Judge Beth Bloom. Status reports and conferences resumed in February and continued through May when Judge Bloom ordered the County to begin submitting monthly reports to the court due to its continued lack of compliance. The County continued submitting status reports monthly until February 2018.
On January 19, 2018, the independent monitor found that the County was still not in compliance. On February 9, 2018 Judge Bloom ordered the parties to write a new summary action plan with a final deadline by which the County would achieve full compliance with the settlement agreement or face sanctions. The parties submitted a new summary action plan on February 14, 2018. The Court ordered this third plan and the final compliance date was set to be April 16, 2018. If the County was not in compliance by that date, sanctions would be filed against them. The County continued to file monitoring reports, but was still not in compliance by the final deadline in the third settlement agreement. The United States filed sanctions against the county on April 30, 2018; the Court ordered these sanctions on May 4, 2018. Also on May 4, the court approved a fourth revised settlement agreement that set the final compliance date to be June 21, 2018. The United States decided not to pursue sanctions following this order on May 11, 2018.
Status reports continued throughout 2018 and early 2019 with the County making progress on the settlement agreement. On March 29, 2019, after the United States had moved for a stay on the compliance deadlines from the fourth summary action plan, the parties informed the court of a final action plan to achieve full compliance. They agreed to file a joint declaration when the County had achieved compliance with the final action plan and set the deadline for full compliance with the settlement agreement to be after the final monitoring tour of the County’s facilities on September 27-29, 2019, with the subsequent monitoring report and conference being completed by November 7, 2019. The parties filed this information in a joint declaration on June 16, 2019.
On November 7, 2019, a status conference was held but the County was still not in full compliance. The Court ordered the parties to develop a compliance timetable, which they submitted on November 12, 2019. The County continued to file monthly status reports, as per the compliance timetable, however, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the parties decided to reschedule the twelfth monitoring tour for October 12, 2020 tentatively, on April 2, 2020. Compliance efforts (monitoring reports submitted by the county and monthly conference calls between the parties) would continue in the meantime.
The County continued filing monthly reports. On March 17, 2021, the parties agreed to terminate several provisions of the consent decree because the County had been compliant with those terms for at least 18 months, including sections related to access to medical care, record keeping, use of force, training, and reporting.
On April 11, 2022, the monitor released a report with significant concerns about in-custody deaths because there were 14 deaths in 2021 and 6 in 2022 deaths by the time of the report. At a status conference on April 15, 2022, the court ordered that the County need not file monthly reports moving forward, and that the County would achieve full compliance by November 18, 2022. If the County was not in compliance by that date, plaintiffs could file for sanctions.
After the April 2022 status conference, conditions continued to deteriorate at the facility, and there were five more deaths as of the monitor’s interim report from August 12, 2022. The monitor’s report was concerned with care of inmates with serious mental health issues, inmate classification, assessments of inmate deaths, and staffing levels. On August 30, 2022, the court filed an order to show cause because the monitor’s report showed a “glaring lack of compliance” by the County, resulting in “life threatening consequences to inmates.” The monitor reported that the actions the County had taken so far had “not resulted in reforms, harm continues, resources continue to be expended, and frustration grows on all sides.” However, the United States had failed to seek sanctions. Therefore, the court asked the United States to show cause why, in light of the County’s failure to comply, the US had not sought sanctions. The court had a show cause hearing on October 12, 2022.
On December 16, 2022, the court ordered the parties to file a final proposed stipulated order and action plan steps. On December 21, 2022, the parties filed a proposed plan and a request for a Independent Compliance Director Plan. On February 16, 2023, the court approved the parties’ plan, and the County appointed Mr. Gary Raney as the Compliance Director to oversee operations at the facility and achieve compliance. The Compliance Director must file a quarterly report on the progress towards compliance. The parties stipulated the defendants would achieve compliance by October 31, 2023. The monitor informed the judge on October 24, 2023, that the County had achieved substantial compliance. According to the monitor, MDCR ceased its prior practice of segregating individuals with serious mental illness (SMI), due in part to implementation of a new system of inmate classification and expanding the range of non-segregation housing alternatives for incarcerated individuals with mental illnesses.
The case has not yet been dismissed, leading the Clearinghouse to believe that monitoring is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Meredith Osborne (11/3/2013)
Jessica Kincaid (7/13/2014)
Chelsea Rinnig (2/14/2018)
Christiana Johnson (4/9/2020)
Hannah Juge (12/25/2023)
Sophia Weaver (3/31/2023)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6294154/parties/united-states-v-miami-dade-county-the-board-of-county-commissioners/
Bloom, Beth Francine (Florida)
Austin, Ron Anthony (Louisiana)
Bendor, Catherine (District of Columbia)
Coon, Laura (District of Columbia)
Cowall, Laura Coon (District of Columbia)
Austin, Ron Anthony (Louisiana)
Bendor, Catherine (District of Columbia)
Coon, Laura (District of Columbia)
Cowall, Laura Coon (District of Columbia)
Dreiband, Eric S. (District of Columbia)
Gore, John M. (District of Columbia)
Gupta, Vanita (District of Columbia)
Harrell-James, Veronica Vanessa (Florida)
Holder, Eric H. Jr. (District of Columbia)
Jansen, Regina (District of Columbia)
Maddox, William G. (District of Columbia)
Marks, Megan R (District of Columbia)
Nair, Amar Shakti (District of Columbia)
Perez, Thomas E. (District of Columbia)
Rosenbaum, Steven H. (District of Columbia)
Smith, Jonathan Mark (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6294154/united-states-v-miami-dade-county-the-board-of-county-commissioners/
Last updated March 16, 2024, 3:02 a.m.
State / Territory: Florida
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 1, 2013
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
U.S. Department of Justice, on behalf of inmates at Miami Dade County Corrections and Rehabilitation Department Jail facilities.
Plaintiff Type(s):
U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff
Attorney Organizations:
U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Miami Dade County (Miami-Dade), County
Miami Dade County (Miami-Dade), County
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997 et seq.
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
Order Duration: 2013 - None
Issues
General/Misc.:
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Suicide prevention (facilities)
Medical/Mental Health Care: