Case: Rudisill v. Ryan

On September 13, 2013, an African American prisoner in the Arizona State Prison Complex in Tucson filed this lawsuit, pro se, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The plaintiff filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the State of Arizona and the Arizona Department of Corrections. He alleged that the prison assigned him to a particular cell on the basis of his race, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The plaintiff alleged that the State of Arizona persisted in continuous and systematic racial segregation in the areas of housing and personal care of the prisoners.

On October 30, 2013, the judge assigned to this case, Judge Cindy A. Jorgenson, granted a motion by attorneys from the law firm Kendall, Brill, and Kelly to represent the plaintiff. Among those attorneys was Bert Deixler, who had litigated Johnson v. California, in which the Supreme Court held that racial housing assignments in prison were usually unconstitutional.

On February 4, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint against all the defendants adding the governor of Arizona as a defendant.

The governor and the director of the Department of Corrections moved to dismiss the case on March 13, 2014. They argued that the plaintiff improperly sued them based on a letter mailed to him and denial of a grievance appeal, despite admitting that the defendants had no involvement in housing, work, or other assignments in the Tucson prison. On March 17, 2014, the Warden of the Arizona State Prison Complex-Tucson also filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the plaintiff improperly sued based on a letter mailed to him.

The plaintiff withdrew the claims against the Division Director of Offender Operation for the Arizona State Department of Corrections, and the Governor. He also filed to substitute the public officer with the Division Director of Operations.

On May 8, 2014, Judge Jorgenson granted the voluntary dismissal of the claims against the governor, and then denied the governor's motion to dismiss as moot. Judge Jorgenson also granted the substitution of the public officer (the Division Director of Offender Operations).

On June 9, 2014, the Division Director of Offender Operations filed a motion to dismiss. This defendant claimed that he was superfluous to this lawsuit and should be dismissed. But, on July 23, 2014, Judge Jorgenson denied the motion.

As discussed in a joint settlement status report filed November 14, 2014, all parties requested a Magistrate Judge to be appointed to the case in order to act as settlement judge in this matter. On November 24, 2014, their request was granted, and Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle was chosen to oversee settlement negotiations.

On December 22, 2015, the parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement. Under the settlement, the defendants agreed to stop segregating prisoners by race in housing, except for in individual cases where a prisoner had a documented history of racial animosity. The defendants also agreed to curtail racially discriminatory practices in prison employment opportunities. They agreed to narrowly tailor any consideration of race in connection to employment assignments to address a compelling state interest, and to only ever consider race as one factor in a comprehensive and objective assessment of employment assignment or service. The change in policy would apply to Arizona Department of Corrections prison complexes in Douglas, Eyman, Florence, Lewis, Perryville, Phoenix, Safford, Tucson, Winslow, and Yuma. The defendants also agreed to pay $5,000 in monetary damages to the named plaintiff, and to pay $195,000 to the plaintiff's counsel in attorneys’ fees and costs.

The agreement was intended to last until at least 2023, and contained a clause prohibiting either party from moving to terminate the agreement during that period. The plaintiff’s counsel were designated as monitors over the defendants’ compliance with the terms of the agreement, and the defendants agreed to provide plaintiff’s counsel with documents, reports, and access to its facilities for monitoring purposes. In the event of a breach of the agreement, a process is in place to resolve the issue out of court first, after which the plaintiff’s counsel may seek court enforcement. The agreement bars the court from ordering the defendants to construct new prisons or to hire a specific number or type of staff unless the defendants propose to do so as part of a plan to remedy a failure to comply.

On February 8, 2016, Judge Jorgenson issued an order approving the settlement agreement, and agreeing to enforce its terms. There have been no further substantive developments in the case as of May 26, 2020.