Case: McGee v. Pallito

On December 9, 2004, an inmate in the Vermont Department of Corrections filed this lawsuit pro se in the U.S. District Court District of Vermont. The plaintiff sued the Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Corrections and the Superintendents of Southern State Correctional Facility and Northern State Correctional Facility under 42 U.S.C. §1983. The pro se plaintiff sought declaratory relief stating the defendants’ actions were unlawful and violated the plaintiff’s rights, along with an injunction stopping the conduct itself. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants violated the Eighth Amendment and inflicted cruel and unusual punishment by illuminating cells with bright lights twenty-four hours per day, thus preventing him and other inmates from sleeping.

In September 2005, many other inmates attempted to join the suit by filing motions to intervene. The plaintiff filed a Notice of Class Action on September 15, 2005. However, the court denied these motions and issued an order denying class certification because Plaintiff was pro se on September 26, 2005. After the plaintiff filed three motions for appointment of counsel, the court finally appointed counsel on December 1, 2005.

Over the next several months, more inmates filed motions to intervene, which were granted by the court. The plaintiff filed a new motion for class certification on July 11, 2006. On October 16, 2006, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for class certification shortly after a report and recommendation from Magistrate Judge Jerome J. Niedermeier. 2006 WL 2975752. The class consisted of inmates: "who have been subjected, are currently being subjected, or who will be subjected to constant illumination in Vermont prison cells and who suffer injuries as a result."

The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on April 16, 2007. After about two years of discovery, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on April 30, 2009. The court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on December 20, 2010. 2010 WL 5389996.

The plaintiff appealed the summary judgment order to the Second Circuit on April 11, 2011. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the district court appointed class counsel whose performance was deficient. The Second Circuit agreed and found that the district court abused its discretion in appointing the class counsel because it did not consider counsel’s inexperience in class actions and the lack of resources for counsel to litigate the case properly. In addition, the Second Circuit vacated the summary judgment order and remanded the case for further proceedings. On remand, the district court appointed new class counsel for the plaintiffs.

After further discovery, the parties came to a settlement agreement that was approved by the court on July 12, 2017. The settlement required that the correction facilities keep the lights dim, make sleep masks available to inmates, provide sleep masks, and pay $50,000 in attorneys’ fees. On July 14, 2017, the court ordered the case dismissed with prejudice, costs, and attorney’s fees in accordance with the settlement agreement. The parties agreed that the settlement agreement met the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (18 U.S.C. § 3626). The PLRA provides that the settlement is terminable upon motion of any party two years after the date the court approved the settlement agreement. As of April 2021, there was no further activity on the case and the settlement agreement remained in place. The case is presumably closed.