Filed Date: Dec. 12, 1978
Closed Date: Feb. 1, 1983
Clearinghouse coding complete
Ohio State Reformatory, the prison in which the movie The Shawshank Redemption was filmed, was closed due to a consent decree that was entered in this case.
On August 21, 1978, four individuals incarcerated at the Ohio State Reformatory filed a class action complaint in the Northern District of Ohio against the Director of the Ohio Department of Corrections and the Superintendent of the Ohio State Reformatory. Suing under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as rights granted under the Ohio Constitution and state law. The plaintiffs alleged that the facility was consistently overcrowded—at the time the complaint was filed, around 2,140 people were incarcerated at the facility, despite being designed for only 1,200. They also alleged that the facility, built in the late 1800s, had physically deteriorated to unconstitutional conditions. These conditions included antiquated plumbing that frequently leaked and flooded; inadequate showering, heating, and cooling; infestation of roaches and rats; and a litany of other unsanitary and unsuitable conditions of everyday life. The plaintiffs also alleged that the defendants racially segregated prisoners.
The four plaintiffs sought to represent a class of all other people are were or would be incarcerated at the Ohio State Reformatory. They also sought declaratory and injunctive relief in addition to attorneys' fees. First, they asked the court to issue a preliminary injunction reducing the prison's population to the designed capacity of 1,200 people. Second, they asked for a permanent injunction barring the use of the Ohio State Reformatory until it was made constitutionally adequate. Alternatively, the plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from racially discriminating against people held in the facility.
On September 4, 1979, the court certified the class. It was later clarified in an order issued on July 1, 1982, as consisting of "all inmates who are or who will in the future be imprisoned at Ohio State Reformatory."
Chief Judge Frank Battisti approved a lengthy consent decree on February 1, 1983, that permanently enjoined the defendants from operating the Ohio State Reformatory as of December 31, 1987. The order effectively closed the facility. However, two new facilities were being built at the time the order was issued—North East Ohio Reformatory and the Dayton Reformatory. While these two facilities were being constructed, Chief Judge Battisti offered to give the defendants six-month extensions to continue operating the Ohio State Reformatory so long as the defendants operated in good faith in building the new facilities and improving the conditions as much as possible in the old facility in the meantime.
In the same order, Chief Judge Battisti also enjoined the defendants from assigning prisoners to cells or jobs based on race. The order included many other provisions, such as enjoining the defendants from overcrowding prisoners in cells, mandating that prisoners not in solitary confinement be given at least forty hours recreation outside of their cells, and requiring prisoners to have greater visitation privileges. Chief Judge Battisti ordered the defendants to create plans in order to comply with these requirements.
The Ohio State Reformatory continued to operate under the terms of the consent decree until it ultimately closed in 1990.
Summary Authors
Justin Hill (7/28/2021)
Register v. Denton, Northern District of Ohio (1975)
Battisti, Frank Joseph (Ohio)
Beggs, Gordon G. (Ohio)
Dietz, Jacqueline F. (Minnesota)
Jamra, Jamille G (Ohio)
Janata, Rudolph (Ohio)
Battisti, Frank Joseph (Ohio)
Last updated March 1, 2024, 3:07 a.m.
Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.State / Territory: Ohio
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Dec. 12, 1978
Closing Date: Feb. 1, 1983
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
All individuals who were, or would be, incarcerated at the Ohio State Reformatory.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
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:
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Goals (e.g., for hiring, admissions)
Preliminary relief request withdrawn/mooted
Issues
General:
Food service / nutrition / hydration
Sanitation / living conditions
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Work release or work assignments
Discrimination-basis:
Race:
Type of Facility: