Case: Doe v. Hommrich

On April 25, 2016, a minor pre-trial detainee in the Rutherford County Detention Facility (“the Facility”) filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The plaintiff sued the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) and its Commissioner, the Director of the Facility, an officer of the Facility, and Rutherford County under 42 U.S.C. §1983. The plaintiff, through private counsel and the ACLU of Tennessee claimed violations of the Eighth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The plaintiff alleged the government had unlawfully held him in solitary confinement for long periods of time as a punitive measure. Specifically, the plaintiff was placed in solitary confinement at the Facility for five days prior to the filing of this lawsuit for allegedly disruptive behavior. The plaintiff sought injunctive and declaratory relief. He requested a temporary restraining order, a preliminary and permanent injunction, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. The case was assigned to Judge Todd J. Campbell.

On April 25, 2016, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order to prevent defendants from placing or keeping him in solitary confinement while awaiting adjudication. On May 4, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim for relief and subject-matter jurisdiction. On May 5, 2016, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding he had not shown irreparable harm, as he was no longer in solitary confinement. The temporary restraining order terminated the same day.

On May 18, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint to certify a class of all current and future juveniles held in detention at secure facilities in the State of Tennessee. On June 9 and 22, 2016, the defendants again moved to dismiss the amended complaint, alleging the matter was moot because the plaintiff was no longer in the custody of the Facility, and alleging failure to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction. On July 7, 2016, the plaintiff sought class certification of those juveniles detained in any facility licensed by DCS, and a subclass of those juveniles detained in the Facility. Judge Campbell denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss on August 26, 2016, finding that the plaintiff’s claim was capable of repetition and therefore was not moot. On November 30, 2016, the case was reassigned to Judge Aleta A. Trauger.

On February 9, 2017, the plaintiff again sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin the defendants from placing the plaintiff or any other class member in solitary confinement as punishment. On February 17, 2017, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion to a certify class defined as “all juveniles detained in the Rutherford County Juvenile Detention Center who are or were placed in solitary confinement or isolation for punitive reasons, from April 25, 2015 to the present.” 2017 WL 660681.

On March 22, 2017, the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction was granted. 2017 WL 1091864. The court found that the plaintiff’s claim that the solitary confinement of juveniles for punitive purposes constituted inhumane treatment was likely to succeed on the merits. On October 30, 2017, the case was referred to a magistrate for settlement. An order dated January 29, 2018, explained that after further discussion, the parties had one unresolved issue that they wish to continue mediating.

The case was transferred to Judge Eli Richardson on November 14, 2018. The parties reached a settlement and then moved for preliminary approval of the agreement on January 24, 2019, but Judge Richardson denied the motion due to concerns about the agreement. The parties then revised the settlement and again moved for preliminary approval on March 27, 2019. Judge Richarson preliminary approved the agreement, and after a fairness hearing, approved the agreement on July 19, 2019. The agreement included a permanent injunction prohibiting Rutherford County from using seclusion as punishment for minors. The defendants also agreed to reporting requirements and that they would pay $250,000 in attorneys' fees and costs. The court dismissed the case with prejudice that same day. The case remains ongoing for compliance with the permanent injunction of the settlement agreement. As of March 24, 2021, there was no additional activity on the docket to suggest compliance issues or disputes.