Case: Henry v. Hulett

3:12-cv-03087 | U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois

Filed Date: March 20, 2012

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On March 31, 2011, female prisoners at an Illinois women’s prison were strip searched as part of a training exercise for new guards. Several of the prisoners filed this putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois. The plaintiffs sued the Illinois Department of Corrections, Lincoln Correctional Center, and Logan Correctional Center under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Represented by civil rights attorneys Loevy and Loevy, they sought damages, costs and attorney’s fees, punitive damages, and injunctive relief against three types of defendants: Members of the correctional facility tactical unit, who escorted the plaintiffs to the area where the searches were conducted, correctional officers who conducted the searches, and members of the Illinois Department of Corrections administration. The complaint alleged that the strip searches were conducted in a way that violated the Fourth and Eighth Amendments. Specifically, they claimed that the strip searches were unnecessary, demeaning, dehumanizing, and humiliating.

The plaintiffs had to stand naked in a line with 8-10 other inmates in a room with other inmates and guards who were not conducting the searches. The prisoners who were menstruating had to remove their menstrual products, they were not given new ones, and many got blood on themselves, their clothes, and the floor. The prisoners had to stand barefoot and naked on a floor covered in menstrual blood, raise their breasts, lift their hair, turn around, bend over, spread their buttocks and vaginas, and cough.

The case was assigned to Judge Richard Mills. On October 21, 2014 Judge Mills granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. 2014 WL 5349870 (C.D. Ill. 2014). Judge Mills certified the two classes. Class I included all individuals subjected to the March 31, 2011 strip search at Lincoln Correctional Center. Class II included all women who are incarcerated at Logan Correctional Center and all women who will be incarcerated at Logan Correctional Center in the future. Lincoln Correctional Center was converted to an all-male prison and the majority of inmates were sent to Logan Correctional Center.

On April 14, 2016 the district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the Fourth Amendment claim, holding that a visual inspection of a prisoner did not constitute an unreasonable search. 2016 WL 11265636 (C.D. Ill. 2016). The district court denied summary judgment on the Eighth Amendment claim and that claim went to trial.

A jury trial was held before Judge Mills on November 14-18, 2016. On November 21, 2016, the jury returned a verdict for the defendants, finding that the searches had not been intended to humiliate or conducted to gain sexual gratification. Judge Mills entered the verdict for the defendants on November 22, 2016. The plaintiffs appealed; they did not contest the jury verdict against them on the Eighth Amendment claim but appealed to the Seventh Circuit to reinstate the Fourth Amendment claim. (Docket No. 16-04234).

On November 30, 2017, the case was argued in front of a panel of three judges: Circuit Judge Frank H. Easterbrook, Circuit Judge Daniel A. Manion, and District Judge John Z. Lee (sitting by designation). On July 16, 2019, the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion affirming the decision of the District Court that granted summary judgment to the defendants. Judge Lee dissented, arguing that whether or not the Fourth Amendment applied depended on whether the prisoners had a reasonable expectation of privacy, not on whether guards or the prisoners themselves conducted the searches. 930 F.3d 836 (7th Cir. 2019).

Rehearing en banc was granted December 18, 2019. 788 Fed. Appx. 387 (Mem). On May 14, 2020 the case was argued en banc via Zoom.

On August 11, 2020 the en banc Seventh Circuit reversed the previous panel’s ruling. In an opinion by Circuit Judge Amy J. St. Eve, the court held that “the Fourth Amendment protects a right to bodily privacy for convicted prisoners, albeit in a significantly limited way, including during visual inspections.” 969 F.3d 769, 774. The Seventh Circuit then remanded the case back to District Court for further proceedings on the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claims. Judge Easterbrook, who wrote the reversed panel opinion in this case, filed a dissent, arguing that convicted prisoners have no rights under the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 788.

After remand, preparations for trial continued. On August 19, 2021, Judge Mills denied a motion for dismissal by members of the tactical unit and prison administrators on qualified immunity grounds and transferred the case to Judge Sue E. Myerscough. Judge Myerscough ordered parallel mediation for a possible settlement to begin on September 9, 2021.

Preparations for trial continued, and on May 23, 2022 a number of defendants reinstated after the 7th Circuit decision requested leave to file for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. These defendants were all correctional officers or members of the correctional facility tactical unit. Jury selection began on May 31, 2022. The same day, plaintiffs requested the dismissal of five defendant tactical unit members and correctional officers. Defendants did not contest this motion and Judge Myerscough dismissed them from the case. The IDOC administrators, one tactical unit member, and one correctional officer remained in the case.

On June 7, 2022, the jury found the prison administrators and a tactical unit member liable for violating the individual plaintiffs’ 4th Amendment rights. Specifically, the liable defendants were found to have directly participated in the search, that they failed to intervene in an unconstitutional search, and that they bore supervisory liability for the search. This liability also extended to the certified class of plaintiffs. The jury did not find any liability for the correctional officer. In addition to determining liability for both the individual plaintiffs and the class of plaintiffs as a whole, the jury awarded $20,000 in compensatory damages and a further $5,500 in punitive damages to each named plaintiff. The punitive damages were imposed only on the IDOC administrators.

Upon receipt of the jury verdict, the defendants requested that Judge Myerscough either enter a directed verdict in their favor by way of qualified immunity or a holding that the issues at hand had been litigated in the initial phase of trial. Alternatively, the defendants requested that she hold a new trial for the same reasons. Judge Myerscough denied this motion on October 25, 2022, in an opinion noting that every issue presented in the directed verdict motion had previously been forfeited or had been agreed to by plaintiffs. Judge Myerscough concluded that allowing a directed verdict or a new trial would be unfair to the plaintiffs, as the plaintiffs had built their trial strategy on the basis of these forfeitures and agreements. Defendants filed a request with Judge Myerscough for interlocutory appeal of these issues as well as a stay of proceedings. Judge Myerscough denied the defendants’ request for an interlocutory appeal and stay of proceedings on January 4, 2023. She noted that a stay pending appeal would increase cost to plaintiffs and would unreasonably extend timeline, effectively shrinking the class by those eligible dying or not realizing their eligibility for compensation due to temporal distance from the events.

On January 9, 2023, the parties met for a settlement conference. Two months later, on March 20, the case was reassigned to Judge Colleen R. Lawless, who had been recently appointed to the federal bench.

Later that year, on August 11, the plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of a class action settlement agreement. Under the agreement, individual class members who were subject to the 2011 strip search would receive about $7,535, with class representatives and people who testified or appeared in order to testify receiving additional incentives, up to a total of $119,000 for all incentive awards combined. Furthermore, class counsel could move for attorneys' fees, as long as the overall payment by defendants was no greater than $3 million. Any money that the defendants paid to the class that did not go to class members would go to the Illinois Prison Project of Restore Justice and Chicago Legal Advocacy for Incarcerated Mothers as cy pres funds. The court would retain jurisdiction to enforce the agreement.

	Document
3:12-cv-03087	Docket [PACER] Throgmorton v. Reynolds	Sept. 11, 2019	Sept. 11, 2019 Docket
16-04234	Docket [PACER] U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit	May 14, 2020	May 14, 2020 Docket
1 3:12-cv-03087	Complaint Throgmorton v. Reynolds	March 20, 2012	March 20, 2012 Complaint
83 3:12-cv-03087	Sixth Amended Complaint Throgmorton v. Hulett	March 31, 2014	March 31, 2014 Complaint
87 3:12-cv-03087	Opinion Throgmorton v. Reynolds	Oct. 21, 2014	Oct. 21, 2014 Order/Opinion 2014 WL 5349870
122 3:12-cv-03087	Order Throgmorton v. Reynolds	April 14, 2016	April 14, 2016 Order/Opinion 2016 WL 11265636
181 3:12-cv-03087	Judgment in a Civil Case Throgmorton v. Reynolds	Nov. 22, 2016	Nov. 22, 2016 Order/Opinion
38 16-04234	Opinion U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit	July 16, 2019	July 16, 2019 Order/Opinion 930 F.3d 836
51-2 16-04234	Brief of Amici Curiae Law Professors and Scholars of Sexual Violence, ACLU, Just Detention International, Roderick and Solange Macarthur Justice Center, Uptown People’s Law Center, & Women’s Prison Association in Support of Petition for Reh'g En Banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit	Aug. 20, 2019	Aug. 20, 2019 Pleading / Motion / Brief
16-04234	Opinion U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit	Aug. 11, 2020	Aug. 11, 2020 Order/Opinion 969 F.3d 769

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT against Lincoln Correctional Center Former Assistant Warden REYNOLDS, Lincoln Correctional Officer ANDERSON, Lincoln Correctional Officer CRAIG, Lincoln Correctional Officer DALLAS, Lincoln Correctional Officer DOWDY, Lincoln Correctional Officer EDMONSON, Lincoln Correctional Officer JOHNSON, Lincoln Correctional Officer KRUDUP, Lincoln Correctional Officer LEONETTI, Lincoln Correctional Officer PFEIFFER, Lincoln Correctional Officer SLATER, Unknown Illinois Department of Corrections Employees ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 0753-1335037.), filed by Patricia Phillips, Delores Henry, Beverly Thogmorton. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Arthur Loevy Attorney Appearance, # 3 Jon Loevy Attorney Appearance, # 4 Michael Kanovitz Attorney Appearance, # 5 Rachel Steinback Attorney Appearance, # 6 Summons, # 7 Summons, # 8 Summons, # 9 Summons, # 10 Summons, # 11 Summons, # 12 Summons, # 13 Summons, # 14 Summons, # 15 Summons, # 16 Summons)(Steinback, Rachel) (Entered: 03/20/2012) 1 Civil Cover Sheet View on PACER 2 Arthur Loevy Attorney Appearance View on PACER 3 Jon Loevy Attorney Appearance View on PACER 4 Michael Kanovitz Attorney Appearance View on PACER 5 Rachel Steinback Attorney Appearance View on PACER 6 Summons View on PACER 7 Summons View on PACER 8 Summons View on PACER 9 Summons View on PACER 10 Summons View on PACER 11 Summons View on PACER 12 Summons View on PACER 13 Summons View on PACER 14 Summons View on PACER 15 Summons View on PACER 16 Summons View on PACER	March 20, 2012	March 20, 2012 RECAP
2	Summonses Issued as to Anderson, Craig, Dallas, Dowdy, Edmonson, Johnson, Krudup, Leonetti, Pfeiffer, Reynolds, and Slater. Original Summonses mailed to Plaintiffs' Attorneys for service. (MJ, ilcd) (Entered: 03/21/2012)	March 21, 2012	March 21, 2012 PACER
3	SUMMONS Returned Executed by Patricia Phillips, Delores Henry, Beverly Thogmorton. Anderson served on 4/13/2012, answer due 5/4/2012. (Steinback, Rachel) (Entered: 04/18/2012)	April 18, 2012	April 18, 2012 PACER
4	SUMMONS Returned Executed by Patricia Phillips, Delores Henry, Beverly Thogmorton. Craig served on 4/13/2012, answer due 5/4/2012. (Steinback, Rachel) (Entered: 04/18/2012)	April 18, 2012	April 18, 2012 PACER
5	SUMMONS Returned Executed by Patricia Phillips, Delores Henry, Beverly Thogmorton. Dallas served on 4/13/2012, answer due 5/4/2012. (Steinback, Rachel) (Entered: 04/18/2012)	April 18, 2012	April 18, 2012 PACER
6	SUMMONS Returned Executed by Patricia Phillips, Delores Henry, Beverly Thogmorton. Dowdy served on 4/13/2012, answer due 5/4/2012. (Steinback, Rachel) (Entered: 04/18/2012)	April 18, 2012	April 18, 2012 PACER
7	SUMMONS Returned Executed by Patricia Phillips, Delores Henry, Beverly Thogmorton. Edmonson served on 4/13/2012, answer due 5/4/2012. (Steinback, Rachel) (Entered: 04/18/2012)	April 18, 2012	April 18, 2012 PACER
8	SUMMONS Returned Executed by Patricia Phillips, Delores Henry, Beverly Thogmorton. Johnson served on 4/13/2012, answer due 5/4/2012. (Steinback, Rachel) (Entered: 04/18/2012)	April 18, 2012	April 18, 2012 PACER
9	SUMMONS Returned Executed by Patricia Phillips, Delores Henry, Beverly Thogmorton. Krudup served on 4/13/2012, answer due 5/4/2012. (Steinback, Rachel) (Entered: 04/18/2012)	April 18, 2012	April 18, 2012 PACER
10	SUMMONS Returned Executed by Patricia Phillips, Delores Henry, Beverly Thogmorton. Leonetti served on 4/13/2012, answer due 5/4/2012. (Steinback, Rachel) (Entered: 04/18/2012)	April 18, 2012	April 18, 2012 PACER
11	SUMMONS Returned Executed by Patricia Phillips, Delores Henry, Beverly Thogmorton. Pfeiffer served on 4/13/2012, answer due 5/4/2012. (Steinback, Rachel) (Entered: 04/18/2012)	April 18, 2012	April 18, 2012 PACER
12	SUMMONS Returned Executed by Patricia Phillips, Delores Henry, Beverly Thogmorton. Reynolds served on 4/13/2012, answer due 5/4/2012. (Steinback, Rachel) (Entered: 04/18/2012)	April 18, 2012	April 18, 2012 PACER
13	SUMMONS Returned Executed by Patricia Phillips, Delores Henry, Beverly Thogmorton. Slater served on 4/13/2012, answer due 5/4/2012. (Steinback, Rachel) (Entered: 04/18/2012)	April 18, 2012	April 18, 2012 PACER
14	Partial ANSWER to 1 Complaint,,,, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES by Anderson, Craig, Dallas, Dowdy, Edmonson, Johnson, Krudup, Leonetti, Pfeiffer, Reynolds, Slater.(Rupcich, Joseph) (Entered: 06/11/2012)	June 11, 2012	June 11, 2012 PACER
15	MOTION to Dismiss Count III by Defendants Anderson, Craig, Dallas, Dowdy, Edmonson, Johnson, Krudup, Leonetti, Pfeiffer, Reynolds, Slater. Responses due by 6/28/2012 (Rupcich, Joseph) (Entered: 06/11/2012)	June 11, 2012	June 11, 2012 PACER
16	MEMORANDUM in Support re 15 MOTION to Dismiss Count III filed by Defendants Anderson, Craig, Dallas, Dowdy, Edmonson, Johnson, Krudup, Leonetti, Pfeiffer, Reynolds, Slater. (Rupcich, Joseph) (Entered: 06/11/2012)	June 11, 2012	June 11, 2012 PACER
17	AMENDED COMPLAINT against Anderson, Craig, Dallas, Dowdy, Edmonson, Johnson, Krudup, Leonetti, Pfeiffer, Reynolds, Slater, Unknown Illinois Department of Corrections Employees, filed by Patricia Phillips, Delores Henry, Beverly Thogmorton.(Steinback, Rachel) (Entered: 06/22/2012)	June 22, 2012	June 22, 2012 RECAP
	Order on Motion to Dismiss	June 22, 2012	June 22, 2012 PACER
18	RESPONSE to Motion re 15 MOTION to Dismiss Count III filed by Plaintiffs Delores Henry, Patricia Phillips, Beverly Thogmorton. (Steinback, Rachel) (Entered: 06/22/2012)	June 22, 2012	June 22, 2012 PACER
	TEXT ORDER: Before the Court is the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count III (d/e 15 ). In the Motion, the Defendants argued that Count III of the Complaint (d/e 1 ) - Indemnfication - is barred by sovereign immunity. Following the filing of the Motion to Dismiss, the Plaintiffs filed a two-count First Amended Complaint (d/e 17 ) that omits the claim for indemnification. In addition, the Plaintiffs have filed a Response to the Motion to Dismiss (d/e 18 ), in which they (1) note the filing of the First Amended Complaint, and (2) request that the Court deny the Motion to Dismiss Count III as moot. In light of these developments, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count III (d/e 15 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. Entered by Judge Richard Mills on 06/22/2012. (VM, ilcd)	June 22, 2012	June 22, 2012 PACER
	TEXT ORDER by Magistrate Judge Byron Cudmore: Defendants are directed to answer or otherwise plead to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint 17 on or before 7/12/2012. (LB, ilcd)	June 28, 2012	June 28, 2012 PACER
	Order	June 28, 2012	June 28, 2012 PACER
19	ANSWER to 17 Amended Complaint, and Affirmative Defenses by Anderson, Craig, Dallas, Dowdy, Edmonson, Johnson, Krudup, Leonetti, Pfeiffer, Reynolds, Slater.(Higgerson, Christopher) (Entered: 07/05/2012)	July 5, 2012	July 5, 2012 RECAP
	Notice of Hearing	July 5, 2012	July 5, 2012 PACER
	NOTICE OF HEARING: Rule 16 Scheduling Conference set Wednesday, 8/15/2012, at 2:00 PM by telephone (court will place call) before Magistrate Judge Byron G. Cudmore. Attorneys are directed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) by meeting as soon as practicable, and in any event at least fourteen (14) days prior to the scheduling conference, and are to submit a proposed discovery plan in writing to the Court on or before 8/13/2012. Such a plan must include, at a minimum, those items listed in CDIL-LR 26.2(3), Rule 16(b), Rule 26(f), and CDIL-LR 16.2(E) with proposed deadlines. The parties are directed to specifically address the provisions, if any, for discovery or disclosure of electronically stored information, and to discuss agreements, if any, the parties reach for asserting claims of privilege or of protection as trial preparation material, after inadvertent production. Any plan filed shall specifically address the need, or lack thereof, concerning discovery of electronically stored information. If a discovery plan is not submitted as required, the scheduling hearing will not be held and costs may be assessed. Lead counsel or other counsel of record with knowledge of the case should be available to participate in the Rule 16 scheduling hearing. (LB, ilcd)	July 5, 2012	July 5, 2012 PACER
20	DISCOVERY PLAN - PROPOSED/Report of Rule 26(f)Planning Meeting by Delores Henry, Patricia Phillips, Beverly Thogmorton. (Steinback, Rachel) (Entered: 08/13/2012)	Aug. 13, 2012	Aug. 13, 2012 PACER
21	NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Erin L O'Boyle on behalf of Anderson, Craig, Dallas, Dowdy, Edmonson, Johnson, Krudup, Leonetti, Pfeiffer, Reynolds, Slater (O'Boyle, Erin) (Entered: 08/15/2012)	Aug. 15, 2012	Aug. 15, 2012 PACER
22	MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before U.S. Magistrate Judge Byron G. Cudmore: Scheduling Conference held on 8/15/2012. Parties are reminded of their option to consent to proceed before US Magistrate Judge. See attached form. Written Scheduling Order to follow. (LB, ilcd) (Entered: 08/15/2012)	Aug. 15, 2012	Aug. 15, 2012 PACER
23	SCHEDULING ORDER: Attorneys Michael Kanovitz, Rachel Steinback, and Erin O'Boyle present by telephone for Rule 16 conference; Same held at 2:00 PM on 8/15/2012; SCHEDULING TIME LIMITS ORDERED: Initial Disclosures due by 8/27/2012. Class and collective certification discovery due by 11/15/2012. Motion for class certification to be filed by 1/15/2013, response by 2/15/2013, and any reply by 3/1/2013. Additional deadlines, including merit discovery, damages discovery, merit expert discovery, and dispositive motions deadline, final pretrial and trial settings will be set after the Court's ruling on any motions for certification. See written order entered by Magistrate Judge Byron G. Cudmore on 8/15/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Mediation Memorandum, # 2 Courtroom Technology Brochure) (LB, ilcd) (Entered: 08/15/2012) 1 Mediation Memorandum View on PACER 2 Courtroom Technology Brochure View on PACER	Aug. 15, 2012	Aug. 15, 2012 PACER
24	MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (Unopposed) by Plaintiffs Delores Henry, Patricia Phillips, Beverly Thogmorton. Responses due by 9/10/2012 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Steinback, Rachel) (Entered: 08/23/2012) 1 Exhibit A View on PACER	Aug. 23, 2012	Aug. 23, 2012 PACER
	TEXT ORDER by Magistrate Judge Byron Cudmore: Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint Joining One Additional Party 24 ALLOWED without objection. Clerk directed to file the Second Amended Complaint [24-1] instanter. All Defendants to answer or otherwise plead to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint by 9/10/2012. Entered on 8/24/2012. (MJ, ilcd)	Aug. 24, 2012	Aug. 24, 2012 PACER
	Order on Motion for Leave to File	Aug. 24, 2012	Aug. 24, 2012 PACER
25	SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against Anderson, Craig, Dallas, Dowdy, Edmonson, Johnson, Krudup, Leonetti, Pfeiffer, Reynolds, Slater, Unknown Illinois Department of Corrections Employees, Melody Hulett, filed by Patricia Phillips, Delores Henry, Beverly Thogmorton. (MJ, ilcd) (Entered: 08/24/2012)	Aug. 24, 2012	Aug. 24, 2012 PACER
	Set/Reset Deadlines	Aug. 24, 2012	Aug. 24, 2012 PACER
	Set Deadlines: All Defendants to answer or otherwise plead to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint by 9/10/2012 per Judge Cudmore's 8/24/2012 Text Order. (MJ, ilcd)	Aug. 24, 2012	Aug. 24, 2012 PACER
26	Summons Issued as to Melody Hulett. Original mailed to attorney for service. (MJ, ilcd) (Entered: 08/28/2012)	Aug. 28, 2012	Aug. 28, 2012 PACER
27	ANSWER to 25 Amended Complaint, Second Amended Complaint [Doc. 25] by Anderson, Craig, Dallas, Dowdy, Edmonson, Johnson, Krudup, Leonetti, Pfeiffer, Reynolds, Slater.(Higgerson, Christopher) (Entered: 09/06/2012)	Sept. 6, 2012	Sept. 6, 2012 RECAP
28	SUMMONS Returned Executed by Delores Henry, Beverly Thogmorton, Patricia Phillips. Melody Hulett served on 9/10/2012, answer due 10/1/2012. (Steinback, Rachel) (Entered: 09/14/2012)	Sept. 14, 2012	Sept. 14, 2012 PACER
29	ANSWER to 25 Amended Complaint, and Affirmative Defenses by Melody Hulett.(Higgerson, Christopher) (Entered: 10/02/2012)	Oct. 2, 2012	Oct. 2, 2012 PACER
30	MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Defendants Anderson, Craig, Dallas, Dowdy, Edmonson, Melody Hulett, Johnson, Krudup, Leonetti, Pfeiffer, Reynolds, Slater. Responses due by 11/26/2012 (Fanning, Robert) (Entered: 11/07/2012)	Nov. 7, 2012	Nov. 7, 2012 PACER

Case: Henry v. Hulett

3:12-cv-03087 | U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois

Case Summary

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Docket

Case Details