ANTHONY C. V. PIMA COUNTY | Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse

Case: Anthony C. v. Pima County

4:82-cv-00501 | U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

Filed Date: Aug. 10, 1982

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On August 10, 1982, detainees in the Pima County Juvenile Detention Center in Tucson filed this class action lawsuit, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona against Pima County. The plaintiffs sued Pima County, the Juvenile Division of the Superior Court of Pima County, the Pima County Court Center, Pima County Detentional Center, and Pima County Board of Supervisors under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 28 U.S.C. § § 2201 and 2202, 20 U.S.C. §1401, 20 U.S.C. §1401, Section 504 of the Rehabilitative persons Act, the Juvenile Justice Act, and the Education of All Handicapped Children Act. Represented by the Southern Arizona Legal Aid and the National Youth Law Center, the plaintiffs sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, and punitive damages.

Specifically, plaintiffs sued for violations of their First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments rights, alleging cruel and unusual punishment; insufficient staffing, unsanitary, unsafe, and illegal conditions of confinement, including: use of leather restraints, inadequate treatment programs, mail censorship, restrictions on visitation, overcrowding, and failure to provide 24-hour detention hearings; intentionally interfering with the plaintiff's right of access to court and counsel; and violation of due process rights, equal protection rights, right to privacy, right to counsel, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to receive treatment under the least restrictive settings.

In January 1985, the parties entered into a settlement agreement. Developed during protracted negotiations, the consent decree provided for increased protection for juveniles in every area under dispute, settling issues including population, meals, clean bedding, towels, clothing, security cells, medical and psychological screening, attorney visitation, telephone calls, other visitation, mail, physical restraints, psychiatric care, recreation, strip searches, medical care, education, hardbound books, and hearings. The settlement agreement outlined conditions that were to be maintained, and specific policies that were to be implemented in the juvenile detention center. The agreement required that the population of the facility not exceed its design capacity, that the detainees be offered a shower daily, that the detainees be granted unlimited attorney visitation, that physical restraints only be used to prevent detainees from hurting themselves or others, and that each detainee be provided a bed. Additionally, it required that a nurse practitioner or doctor be advised of every complaint that a detainee makes and determine whether to see and treat the detainee, and that strip searches only occur under certain circumstances, among other things. The settlement agreement also provided that the district court would retain jurisdiction over the parties for two years, then dismiss the action with prejudice, and officials agreed to limit the number of juveniles detained in the facility to eliminate overcrowding.

A digitized docket sheet is not available, but presumably the case ended in the 1980s.

show full summary

Summary Authors

Kristen Sagar (10/27/2007)

Lakshmi Gopal (5/15/2016)