The plaintiffs in this class action are 12 inmates in the Michigan Department of Corrections who were incarcerated in adult jails and prisons when they were younger than 18. Each of the plaintiffs participated in litigation against the MDOC in cases in Washtenaw Circuit Court, Case No. 13-1196-CZ and in Federal Court in the Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 13-14356. These cases can be found in the Clearinghouse--they are PC-MI-0039 (state) and PC-MI-0033 (federal). In those cases, they alleged that the policy and practice of placing juveniles in adult prisons without taking adequate steps to protect them from known harm constituted deliberate indifference to their safety in violation of rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment, Eighth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and various international treaties. The cases settled (on February 28, 2020) for $80 million and injunctive relief.

In this case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on Nov. 2, 2015, the complaint alleged that because the plaintiffs participated in the initial two cases they were subjected to retaliation from prison staff and administration, in violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs are represented by the same group of private counsel who are litigating the other cases; it has been assigned to Judge Arthur J. Tarnow.

The allegations in more detail are that, after filing the earlier two lawsuits against the MDOC, each of the plaintiffs here faced repercussions for engaging in protected activity at the hands of prison staff and administration. This retaliatory action included verbal harassment, disclosure of their identities despite a court order not to disclose the plaintiffs' identities, and verbal threats. The plaintiffs also alleged that the defendants target them with ongoing unwarranted disciplinary action including solitary confinement and harsher terms of confinement. The complaint alleged that defendants also refused to allow plaintiffs confidential communication with their attorneys, read confidential legal material aloud in front of staff and inmates, and impermissibly questioned the plaintiffs about their case.

The plaintiffs were seeking damages and injunctive relief, as well as a court order for the MDOC to revise its policy and procedure for reporting and reviewing staff misconduct. The court made several decisions in plaintiffs' favor: first, on Mar 4, 2016, it declined to sever (2016 WL 852808); then, on Jun 13, 2016, it denied defendants' motion for protective order to stay discovery (2016 WL 3230679), then, on Mar 31, 2017 it denied summary judgment (2017 WL 1209102); then, on Oct 18, 2017 it granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration (2017 WL 4682291); then, on Nov 1, 2017, it granted several of the plaintiffs' motions to compel (2017 WL 4941467); and finally, on Nov 3, 2017, it denied defendants' motion for reconsideration (2017 WL 5080516).

While defendants' second motion for summary judgment was pending, the parties reached a private settlement agreement, on June 15, 2018. Under the agreement, plaintiffs dismissed their case. Defendants paid $350,000, and agreed to review all prior disciplinary charges to ensure none were retaliatory.