Case: W.C. v. DeBruyn

1:90-cv-00040 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana

Filed Date: Jan. 16, 1990

Closed Date: 2005

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On January 16, 1990, juveniles at the Indiana Boys School, a correctional facility in Plainfield, Indiana, filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all present and future students against the superintendent of the school and commissioner of the Indiana Department of Corrections under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The plaintiffs, who were represented by Legal Services of Indiana, asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming…

On January 16, 1990, juveniles at the Indiana Boys School, a correctional facility in Plainfield, Indiana, filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all present and future students against the superintendent of the school and commissioner of the Indiana Department of Corrections under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The plaintiffs, who were represented by Legal Services of Indiana, asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that the school's confinement conditions violated the juveniles' constitutional rights. They sought to reduce overcrowding and to increase the school's staff. They also sought changes in the school's medical, psychiatric and special education services.

On September 26, 1991, the parties entered into a Consent Decree. The Decree called for the defendants to lower the population of the school and to amend the school's disciplinary policies in accordance with the American Correctional Association standards. They also agreed to rehabilitate the medical unit and to provide more comprehensive services; to offer appropriate education, including individualized educational programs for students with disabilities; and to provide psychiatric treatment. Finally, the Decree required the defendants to pay for the plaintiffs' attorneys fees, and the plaintiffs to notify the class members of the proposed settlement terms. The Consent Decree provided for continued monitoring of the school's conditions for three years. On December 20, 1991, the court (Judge Sarah Evans Barker) entered a judgment approving the terms of the Consent Decree.

In May 1993, the plaintiffs sought to hold the defendants in contempt for violating the Decree. Subsequently the parties engaged in negotiations, and in what appears to be December 1993, the parties entered stipulations to amend the Decree.

On July 7, 1994, the court (Judge Barker) entered an order modifying the terms of the Consent Decree. The court ordered the school's population to be capped at 490, and to work to reduce the population to 400.

On February 22, 1995, the court (Judge Barker) entered an order in response to the parties' dispute over the amount of attorneys fees the defendants owed the plaintiffs. The court ordered the defendants to pay $4,135.00. W.C. v. DeBruyn, 833 F. Supp. 354 (S.D. Ind. 1995).

Thereafter, the parties continued to dispute the timeline for reducing the school's population and for adhering to other conditions of the Consent Decree.

On August 31, 2005, the District Court (Judge Barker) granted the defendants' unopposed motion to terminate the prospective relief in the case, under the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The Court terminated the Consent Decree, as amended, and the case was closed.

Summary Authors

Laura Uberti (5/20/2006)

People


Judge(s)

Barker, Sarah Evans (Indiana)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Bennett, Julie E. (Indiana)

Falk, Kenneth J. (Indiana)

Hayes, Lisa R. (Indiana)

Jubinsky, Grace (Indiana)

Pappas, Tracy T. (Indiana)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Arthur, David A. (Indiana)

Carter, Pamela (Indiana)

Lahn, Seth M. (Indiana)

Uhl, Wayne Elliott (Indiana)

Judge(s)

Barker, Sarah Evans (Indiana)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Bennett, Julie E. (Indiana)

Falk, Kenneth J. (Indiana)

Hayes, Lisa R. (Indiana)

Jubinsky, Grace (Indiana)

Pappas, Tracy T. (Indiana)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Arthur, David A. (Indiana)

Carter, Pamela (Indiana)

Lahn, Seth M. (Indiana)

Uhl, Wayne Elliott (Indiana)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

1:90-cv-00040

Docket [PACER]

W.C. v. Aiken

Aug. 31, 2005

Aug. 31, 2005

Docket

1:90-cv-00040

Complaint / Class Action

Jan. 16, 1990

Jan. 16, 1990

Complaint
20

1:90-cv-00040

Stipulation to Enter Consent Decree Following Notice to the Class

Sept. 26, 1991

Sept. 26, 1991

Settlement Agreement

1:90-cv-00040

Parties' Stipulation to Withdraw Contempt Pleading and Stipulation to Amend Settlement

Dec. 27, 1993

Dec. 27, 1993

Settlement Agreement
556

1:90-cv-00040

Order

July 6, 1994

July 6, 1994

Order/Opinion
565

1:90-cv-00040

Entry

883 F.Supp. 354

Feb. 22, 1995

Feb. 22, 1995

Order/Opinion
623

1:90-cv-00040

Order Terminating Prospective Relief

W.C. and T.P. v. Donahue

Sept. 1, 2005

Sept. 1, 2005

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

Last updated July 21, 2022, 3:19 a.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: Indiana

Case Type(s):

Juvenile Institution

Key Dates

Filing Date: Jan. 16, 1990

Closing Date: 2005

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

All present and future students at the Indiana Boys School.

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: Unknown

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Indiana Department of Corrections and Indiana Boys School, State

Indiana Boys School, State

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 1991 - 2005

Issues

General:

Disciplinary procedures

Disciplinary segregation

Education

Food service / nutrition / hydration

Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)

Totality of conditions

Visiting

Crowding:

Pre-PLRA Population Cap

Affected Gender:

Male

Type of Facility:

Government-run