Filed Date: May 13, 2010
Closed Date: June 26, 2018
Clearinghouse coding complete
On February 17, 2007, the United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division (DOJ), opened an investigation of the Cook County Jail, under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA). In July 2007, the DOJ conducted on-site inspections of the jail, interviewing staff and inmates, and on August 3, 2007, the DOJ notified jail officials of potentially life-threatening deficiencies at the jail, including grossly unsanitary conditions and inadequate emergency key precautions, which the jail immediately began to improve. As DOJ continued to investigate, its lawyers found a series of serious problems with the jail. For example, in one case, an inmate left untreated for a gunshot wound developed sepsis and died. Another inmate's medical problems went untreated, causing him to eventually need an amputation. Just one dentist served 9,800 inmates, and he only dealt in extractions. Indeed, the investigators found that twenty-five percent of the dental procedures result in infection.
On July 11, 2008, the DOJ issued a 98-page findings letter detailing its conclusion that the jail was operating to deprive prisoners of their constitutional rights in many respects. The DOJ and the county then negotiated a settlement to the matter, and on May 13, 2010, DOJ filed its formal complaint and both parties filed a proposed settlement. On May 26, 2010, Judge Virginia M. Kendall issued an agreed order that addressed those problems and appointed four experts in the areas of Corrections, Medical, Mental Health, and Sanitation to monitor Defendants' compliance with the Order, who were to submit reports to the court on a semiannual basis. The proposed settlement contained comprehensive provisions on use of force, protection from harm, medical care, mental health care, sanitation, training, quality assurance/performance improvement, fire and life safety, and improved policies, procedures, and practices. The order would terminate when Defendants have achieved substantial compliance with each of the provisions of the Agreed Order and have maintained Substantial Compliance with the Agreed Order for a period of 18 months.
On May 27, 2010, the Defendants filed a motion for a Prisoner Release Order. In a previous case, Duran v. Sheriff Thomas Dart (case no. 74 C 2949), Judge Shadur had ordered a Prisoner Release Order on March 22, 1983. (Duran is JC-IL-0002 in this Clearinghouse.) That order remained in effect over all the subsequent years. In addition to that order, Judge George M. Marovich, who succeeded Judge Shadur as the U.S. District Court Judge to whom this matter was assigned, entered a transfer order on November 14, 2003, permitting the Cook County Department of Corrections (CCDOC) to transfer to the Illinois Department of Corrections all persons remanded to the CCDOC who had unexpired terms of imprisonment as a result of being released on a mandatory supervised release order ("Parole").
Despite having years to comply with the previous court orders, the CCDOC still had daily concerns whether a spike in arrests, or some other factor not under the CCDOC's control, would increase the number of inmates beyond the number of living units available. At the time, the daily population at CCDOC exceeded 90% of capacity. Therefore, the Defendants sought to continue the March 22, 1983 Prisoner Release Order entered by Judge Shadur and the November 14, 2003 Order entered by Judge Marovich pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3)(C). Defendants asked that the Prisoner Release Order permit the Sheriff to release individuals in such numbers necessary to reduce and relieve overcrowding, thus allowing solutions to the identified constitutional deficiencies.
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626, even if the parties agree, such an order can be entered only by a three-judge district court after certain findings are entered by that court. The requisite findings include: an ongoing violation of constitutional rights, with crowding as the primary source of the constitutional deficiencies, and weighing of public safety concerns.
Pursuant to this statute, a three-judge court was convened. On January 11, 2011, Judge Richard A. Posner, Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman, and Judge Kendall denied the motion for entry of the proposed released order without prejudice, inviting the parties to submit a revised motion consistent with the discussion and directives in their opinion, plus evidence to support an estimate of the number of prisoners expected to be released if a revised order was approved. U.S. v. Cook County, Illinois, 761 F.Supp.2d 794 (N.D. Ill. 2011). The Defendant responded and the Plaintiffs agreed with the revised proposed order. On March 14, 2011, the three Judges stated that the revised proposed order complied with the directives in their opinion and was satisfactory with the exception of the provision stating that the Sheriff "may release detainees in order to reduce the population of CCJ to 85% of its available bed capacity," upon specified conditions. On March 29, 2011, the three Judges approved the modified released order that allowed the release on electronic monitoring of up to 1,500 pretrial detainees to prevent overcrowding and thus reduce the number of potential constitutional violations stemming from overcrowding at CCJ.
On June 13, 2011, Judge Kendall ordered that, by agreement of the parties, the Sheriff of Cook County was authorized to retain Patricia Hardyman, Ph.D. of the Criminal Justice Institute, Inc. in Middletown, Connecticut to consult with and aid the Sheriff in creating a classification system compliant with the Agreed Order entered on May 26, 2010.
The Court monitored the Defendants' compliance with the provisions of the order through reports of assigned monitors and the parties and periodic status conferences. The May 2017 monitoring report marked the first finding of achievement of substantial compliance with all areas of the order.
On May 18, 2017, the DOJ moved to dismiss the Sheriff from the case, finding that the Sheriff and the CCDOC had achieved and sustained substantial compliance with the requirements assigned to the Sheriff under the order. At a June 9, 2017 hearing, Judge Kendall granted a motion to dismiss the Sheriff and lifted formal oversight of the Cook County jail in that respect.
Because other provisions unrelated to the Sheriff still required 18 months of sustained compliance according to the order, limited twice-yearly monitoring continued. The November 2017 monitoring report found continued substantial compliance, marking 6 months of full substantial compliance. In that report, the monitor noted areas for improvement, particularly in regard to healthcare, and noted that in order to maintain substantial compliance regarding access to care, the County must address these areas prior to the next monitoring visit. The May 2018 report highlighted sustained substantial compliance with regards to medical and dental care.
The parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss the remaining sections of the agreed order on June 12, 2018. The parties agreed that Cook County achieved and maintained substantial compliance with all of the Agreed Order provisions for which it bore responsibility, and therefore found it appropriate to conclude the Agreed Order. Judge Kendall granted the motion on June 26, 2018. The case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Jessica Kincaid (2/3/2014)
Sarah McDonald (3/24/2018)
Justin Hill (3/16/2020)
Duran v. Elrod, Northern District of Illinois (1974)
Harrington v. Devito, Northern District of Illinois (1974)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4259446/parties/united-states-v-cook-county-illinois/
Coleman, Sharon Johnson (Illinois)
Kendall, Virginia Mary (Illinois)
Posner, Richard Allen (Illinois)
Austin, Roy L. (District of Columbia)
Becker, Grace Chung (District of Columbia)
Dean, Kerry Krentler (District of Columbia)
Deutsch, David (District of Columbia)
Fitzgerald, Patrick J. (Illinois)
Holder, Eric H. Jr. (District of Columbia)
Johnson, Patrick Walter (Illinois)
Coleman, Sharon Johnson (Illinois)
Kendall, Virginia Mary (Illinois)
Posner, Richard Allen (Illinois)
Austin, Roy L. (District of Columbia)
Becker, Grace Chung (District of Columbia)
Dean, Kerry Krentler (District of Columbia)
Deutsch, David (District of Columbia)
Fitzgerald, Patrick J. (Illinois)
Holder, Eric H. Jr. (District of Columbia)
Johnson, Patrick Walter (Illinois)
Jones, Michelle A. (District of Columbia)
Laser, Joan (Illinois)
Nicholas, Adele D. (Illinois)
Perez, Thomas E. (District of Columbia)
Preston, Judith (Judy) C. (District of Columbia)
Sanders, Corey M. (District of Columbia)
Smiddie, Kyle (District of Columbia)
Trainor, Cathleen (District of Columbia)
Angell, Darren K. (Illinois)
Castiglione, Paul Anthony (Illinois)
Cavanaugh, Colleen Bernadette (Illinois)
Driscoll, Patrick T. Jr. (Illinois)
Duffy, Daniel P. (Illinois)
Gallagher, Daniel Francis (Illinois)
Lanzito, Dominick L. (Illinois)
O'Grady, Paul A (Illinois)
Pechous, Donald J. (Illinois)
Zecchin, Anthony E. (Illinois)
Solock, Mark W. (Illinois)
Grenawitzke, Harry E. (Michigan)
McCampbell, Susan W. (Florida)
Metzner, Jeffrey L. (Colorado)
Porsa, Esmaeil (Texas)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4259446/united-states-v-cook-county-illinois/
Last updated May 12, 2022
State / Territory: Illinois
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Post-PLRA enforceable consent decrees
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 13, 2010
Closing Date: June 26, 2018
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The U.S. Department of Justice, on behalf of pretrial detainees and convicted inmates from the Cook County Jail.
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
The Cook County Sheriff (Cook), County
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997 et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Availably 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
Order Duration: 2010 - 2018
Content of Injunction:
Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention
Issues
General:
Assault/abuse by residents/inmates/students
Sanitation / living conditions
Crowding:
Medical/Mental Health:
Type of Facility: