Filed Date: Aug. 10, 1994
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
On August 10, 1994, after conducting a comprehensive investigation, the United States filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. The U.S. sued the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the governor, various executive officials, and the directors of several juvenile facilities under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997 et seq. The U.S., represented by the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S. Attorney's Office, asked the court for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. The U.S. claimed that the defendants failed to protect incarcerated juveniles in detention facilities and training schools from harm. Specifically, the U.S. alleged that the policies, procedures, and conditions at the juvenile facilities in Puerto Rico violated statutory rights and the constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection.
The United States filed a proposed consent order simultaneously with the complaint, which was entered by the District Court (Judge Carmen Cerezo) as a partial judgment on October 6, 1994. The purpose of the consent order was to address the immediate issues of psychiatric care and overcrowding. The order provided deadlines for the establishment of a mental health care program at the juvenile facilities. The defendants were required to transfer all juveniles who were in need of in-patient mental health treatment to an in-patient facility, to develop a suicide prevention and intervention program, to train the staff that supervised the juveniles in suicidal and self-mutilating behaviors. Regarding the crowding issue, the defendants were required to take steps to reduce the number of juveniles confined in the facilities so that capacity was not exceeded 180 days after the consent decree was entered. The court appointed Orlando Martinez as the monitor to oversee compliance with the order.
On October 7, 1994, the United States submitted a comprehensive settlement agreement and filed a motion to enter the settlement agreement as an additional order. The agreement provided that the defendant would construct new facilities and remodel the existing facilities, develop a manual of the policies and procedures that govern the operation of the institutions, develop a handbook for the juveniles advising them of their rights and the rules of conduct, and ensure that the juvenile institutions were adequately staffed. It further provided for the development and implementation of a classification system to ensure that juveniles were placed in the least restrictive setting possible, for the development of an efficient and effective mental healthcare program, which would include a substance abuse program, and for the development of an adequate education program. Finally, the agreement provided that physical force was only to be used in justifiable self-defense, for the protection of others, or for the prevention of escape. Isolation was only deemed appropriate when a juvenile posed immediate threat to themselves or others. On the same day, the District Court (Judge Cerezo) granted the United States' motion to enter the settlement agreement as an order. The court retained jurisdiction to monitor implementation of the settlement agreement.
On March 12, 1997, the parties informed the Court that Congress had enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and that the statute required the Court make certain findings regarding its previous orders. The parties also advised the Court that they would continue to meet with the Court Monitor and arrive at an agreed upon motion with regard to the current conditions in the facilities and the need for continued judicial oversight. And on October 7, 1997, the United States filed a Motion to Enter Settlement Agreement as an Order of the Court and for a Finding of Compliance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act. By Order dated December 12, 1997, the District Court approved the Settlement Agreement.
Remediation continued from 1997 to 2007. On March 8, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to terminate the prospective relief order entered by the Court on December 12, 1997, pursuant to the PLRA. Under the PLRA, ordinarily such a motion is the basis for a stay of pending remediation after 30 days, but on April 10, the Court found good cause for postponement of the automatic stay until June 6, 2007 and set an evidentiary hearing for May 7, 2008. Defendants appealed this finding. The day before the hearing, the parties settled, and filed a motion setting out which parts of the prior settlement agreements would remain in effect and which would be terminated. The hearing then supplied the basis for approval of the remaining provisions.
In addition to leaving in place a number of the provisions of the existing agreement, the parties implemented new requirements of sufficient direct care staffing to supervise in recreational, leisure and treatment activities with the juveniles; and new regulation of the response to allegations of abuse and mistreatment.
On April 28, 2008, the United States filed a Motion for Specific Performance and Supplemental Relief in an effort to protect youth from staffing shortages. The U.S. agreed to defer enforcement while the defendants pursued alternative measures. When the alternative measures proved ineffective, the two parties entered into a stipulation that required the hiring and training of additional staff and subsequent monitoring of the remedy. The Court approved the stipulation on January 8, 2009. After the United States determined that the defendants failed to adequately implement the remediation steps, the United States filed a Motion for Contempt on July 2, 2009. The Court denied the motion, stating that the defendants showed reasonable diligence in attempting to fulfill the Stipulated Order. The United States appealed on May 21, 2010; the First Circuit dismissed the appeal. U.S. v. Puerto Rico, 642 F.3d 103 (1st Cir. 2011).
The defendants moved to terminate particular relief provisions of the parties’ Settlement Agreement in May 2010, August 2011, October 2012, May 2016, March 2018, and June 2019. The Court granted the first five motions to terminate their respective relief provisions, and the sixth motion is pending. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate two additional provisions in July 2014 because the defendants were in compliance per the monitoring report for the first quarter of 2014.
From 2009 until 2018, Warren F. Benton acted as the monitor issuing quarterly reports. In the second quarter of 2018, Kimberly B. Tandy assumed monitoring duties. The case was reassigned to Judge Gustavo Gelpi on December 19, 2019.
After years of status reports, the court issued an order on November 11, 2020 to convene a three-judge panel to determine whether to release prisoners from the juvenile facilities subject to the consent decree in light of "a most appalling and disturbing predicament which jeopardizes the mental and physical well-being of their population." 2020 WL 6948174. The order was issued in response to a monitoring report that found that one quarter of the juvenile population at these facilities was hospitalized between July 1 and September 30, 2020 due to suicide or mutilation attempts. During that same period, one third of the juvenile population engaged in suicidal ideation, gestures of intent (including serious attempts by hanging), or self-mutilation. The court reprimanded the Commonwealth for "fail[ing] to remedy the juveniles' inexcusable deprivation of constitutional rights" and concluded that the court was obligated to intervene to protect the mental health and safety of the juvenile prisoners. The court elected to convene a three-judge panel to determine whether a prisoner release was appropriate, citing the facilities' lack of capacity.
Four days later, on November 16, 2020, the court issued another order enforcing a previous order that directed the Commonwealth to identify the personnel and contractors who were essential to the Commonwealth's efforts to comply with the settlement agreement and subsequent orders, which the Commonwealth had failed to do. In the November 16th order, the court threatened to hold the Commonwealth in contempt and subject it to sanctions for continued noncompliance and asserted that it would "do all that is in its power to address the drastic and noncompliant posture of the Commonwealth." The Commonwealth complied the following day. In response, the court issued an order preventing essential personnel from being transferred, removed, or terminated without the court's permission. The order also required essential contractors to continue providing services (with compensation) even after their contracts expired unless the court permitted them to cease.
The court continued to express its impatience with the Commonwealth in subsequent orders, noting in one that "[t]he Commonwealth's self-serving characterization of its compliance efforts is its own."
On December 9, 2020, the court designated First Circuit Court of Appeals Judge David J. Barron, District of Puerto Rico Judge Francisco A. Besosa, and District of Puerto Rico Chief Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi to serve on the three-judge panel. The case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Kaitlin Corkran (5/31/2006)
Richard Jolly (11/25/2014)
Saeeda Joseph-Charles (11/2/2016)
Justin Hill (11/3/2019)
Becca Rogers (12/20/2020)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5389446/parties/usa-v-commonwealth-of-pr/
Agostini, Jose A. Fuentes (Puerto Rico)
Aldarondo-Ortiz, Eliezer (Puerto Rico)
Almonte-Duluc, Gittel (Puerto Rico)
Annexy-Guevara, Beatriz (Puerto Rico)
Barreto-Sola, Rafael E. (Puerto Rico)
Buehler, Brian D. (District of Columbia)
Dunne, John R. (District of Columbia)
Fernandez-Torres, Miguel A. (Puerto Rico)
Gayle, Winsome (District of Columbia)
Goemann, Richard C. (District of Columbia)
Jones, Michelle A. (District of Columbia)
Mondino, Jennifer L. (District of Columbia)
Munoz-Acosta, Isabelle (Puerto Rico)
Murphy, Amie S. (District of Columbia)
Paglieri, Gabriella S. (Puerto Rico)
Patrick, Deval L. (District of Columbia)
Peabody, Arthur E. Jr. (District of Columbia)
Perez, Sergio (District of Columbia)
Pinzler, Isabelle Katz (District of Columbia)
Preston, Judith (Judy) C. (District of Columbia)
Reno, Janet (District of Columbia)
Rios, Maria Hortensia (District of Columbia)
Rosenbaum, Steven H. (District of Columbia)
Saucedo, Luis E. (District of Columbia)
Schoen, Benjamin P. (District of Columbia)
Simons, Shaheena A (District of Columbia)
Agostini, Jose A. Fuentes (Puerto Rico)
Aldarondo-Ortiz, Eliezer (Puerto Rico)
Almonte-Duluc, Gittel (Puerto Rico)
Annexy-Guevara, Beatriz (Puerto Rico)
Barreto-Sola, Rafael E. (Puerto Rico)
Brugman-Mercado, Harry (Puerto Rico)
Crespin-Credi, Esther (Puerto Rico)
Delgado-Vega, Damaris (Puerto Rico)
Del-Valle-Cruz, Carlos A. (Puerto Rico)
Del-Valle-Emmanuelli, Luis F. (Puerto Rico)
Ferdman, Taraneh K. (Puerto Rico)
Laffitte, Miguel G. (Puerto Rico)
Landron-Guardiola, Eileen (Puerto Rico)
Longo-de-Morgan, Dennisse N. (Florida)
Longo-Quinones, Dennise N. (Puerto Rico)
Lugo-Auffant, Daliah (Puerto Rico)
Madera-Toro, Raul (Puerto Rico)
McCall, Michael C. (Puerto Rico)
Nemcik-Cruz, Rick (California)
Ojeda-Diez, Francisco A. (Puerto Rico)
Penagaricano, Gabriel A. (Puerto Rico)
Perez-Borerro, Arlene R. (Puerto Rico)
Pierluisi, Pedro (Puerto Rico)
Quinones, Dennise N. Longo (Puerto Rico)
Ruiz-Comas, Roberto E. (Puerto Rico)
Surillo, Maria Judith (Puerto Rico)
Torres-Delgado, Sheila J. (Puerto Rico)
Torres-Ortiz, Joel (Puerto Rico)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5389446/usa-v-commonwealth-of-pr/
Last updated May 11, 2025, 9:39 p.m.
State / Territory: Puerto Rico
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Post-PLRA enforceable consent decrees
Key Dates
Filing Date: Aug. 10, 1994
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
U.S. Department of Justice
Plaintiff Type(s):
U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff
Attorney Organizations:
U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Cabo Rojo Industrial School , School District
The Central Treatment Center (Guanabo), None
Guaynabo Training School, None
Juvenile Institutions Administration, None
Metropolitan Training School at Bayam-n (Bayamon), None
Ponce Central Training School, None
Ponce Detention Center for Girls, None
Ponce Industrial School for Girls and Boys, None
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, None
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, None
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997 et seq.
Indv. w/ Disab. Educ. Act (IDEA), Educ. of All Handcpd. Children Act , 20 U.S.C. § 1400
Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Goals (e.g., for hiring, admissions)
Order Duration: 1994 - None
Issues
General/Misc.:
Food service / nutrition / hydration
Sanitation / living conditions
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Disability and Disability Rights:
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Assault/abuse by staff (facilities)
Suicide prevention (facilities)
Medical/Mental Health Care: