Case: Disability Rights South Carolina v. Richland County

8:22-cv-01358 | U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina

Filed Date: April 28, 2022

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This case challenges conditions for pretrial detainees who have serious mental illnesses.  This case was filed by Disability Rights South Carolina (DRSC) against Richland County, South Carolina, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on April 28, 2022. Represented by private counsel, DRSC sued on behalf of incarcerated individuals and alleged that the dangerous and inhumane pre-trial detention practices at the Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center (ASGDC) violated their rights.…

This case challenges conditions for pretrial detainees who have serious mental illnesses. 

This case was filed by Disability Rights South Carolina (DRSC) against Richland County, South Carolina, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on April 28, 2022. Represented by private counsel, DRSC sued on behalf of incarcerated individuals and alleged that the dangerous and inhumane pre-trial detention practices at the Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center (ASGDC) violated their rights. DRSC brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of due process and constitutional protections under the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment, as well as under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The allegations included disabled detainees being locked in unsanitary cells for up to 24 hours a day in the Special Housing Unit. DRSC sought declaratory judgment, preliminary and permanent injunctions restraining and prohibiting the defendant from confining disabled detainees unless conditions were met, and attorneys’ fees. DRSC was represented by private counsel. This case was assigned to District Judge Mary Geiger Lewis.On June 13, 2022, DRSC filed an amended complaint. It added a request for certification of a class including all confined at ASGDC and who have been assigned to “mental health” housing and diagnosed by a psychiatrist or other licensed clinical mental health professional with a mental illness.

On April 17, 2024, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. The complaint added 15 unnamed plaintiffs as class representatives. 

The plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on July 22, 2024. The motion alleged that disabled detainees continued to face unsanitary conditions after the filing of the lawsuit and discovery. The plaintiffs requested that the defendant provide therapeutic services necessary to treat the full range of medical needs of  detainees, provide adequate structured and unstructured out-of-cell therapeutic activities, refrain from placing detainees in cells or pods without access to running water, working toilets, working light fixtures, clean and mildew-free showers with adequate hot and cold water, and access to feminine hygiene products; and refrain from placing detainees in housing units without direct supervision.

Certain plaintiffs filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss on September 5, 2024. The case continued without these plaintiffs. On the same day, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class of all individuals who had been detained at ASDGC since April 28, 2022, or would be detained at ASGDC in the future, and suffered from serious mental illness.

On December 9, 2024, Magistrate Judge William S. Brown issued a report and recommendation addressing the motion for preliminary injunction and recommending that the motion be denied. Plaintiffs filed objections on January 7, 2025, and the County filed a response on January 21, 2025. 

On January 15, 2025, each party filed motions for summary judgement. The defendant argued that since August 2022, Richland County had invested tens of millions of dollars into ASGDC. Additionally, the defendant alleged it provided constitutionally adequate care to ASGDC’s detainees. The defendant also argued the plaintiff lacked standing to sue because DRSC did not operate enough like a membership organization. They also argued that if a corrections system which housed long-term detainees need not provide unqualified or unlimited mental health care, a local detention facility most likely owed a lesser level of care. 

The plaintiff’s motion argued that the defendant systematically violated detainees’ Fourteenth Amendment rights because of its failure to provide mental health services and treatment. The plaintiff also alleged that detainees continue to be exposed to substantial risk of serious harm, and the defendant was deliberately indifferent to the risk of serious harm caused by its failure to protect detainees from violence.

On March 31, 2025, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denied the motion for preliminary injunction. The court concluded that plaintiffs had not met the standard for preliminary relief, emphasizing that the record contained significant factual disputes regarding the adequacy of mental health treatment and the conditions experienced by detainees at the detention center. In light of these disputed issues and the demanding standard for mandatory injunctive relief prior to a determination on the merits, the court found that plaintiffs had not demonstrated a likelihood of success sufficient to justify court intervention at that stage of the litigation.

On September 23, 2025, the district court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granted in part Defendants’ motion, dismissing with prejudice Plaintiffs’ discrimination claim—challenging restrictive housing policies and use-of-force practices that allegedly had a harsher, disparate impact on SMI Detainees— as well as their inadequate mental health treatment and Eighth Amendment claims. The court also certified a class as to Plaintiffs’ failure-to-protect and conditions of confinement claims, while declining to certify one Named Plaintiff’s inadequate mental health treatment claim. The court appointed the Named Plaintiffs as class representatives and designated existing counsel as class counsel. The certified class included all individuals detained at ASGDC on or after April 28, 2022, who, prior to discharge, were assigned to a mental health housing unit or qualified as SMI Detainees based on objective clinical criteria, including diagnoses of serious mental illnesses (such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, or other psychotic or mood disorders), documented functional impairments affecting daily living or coping abilities, or admission to a behavioral health or psychiatric hospital. 2025 WL 2702055.

As a result of this ruling, the case proceeded on the remaining class claims under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court scheduled the case for jury selection and/or trial on or after September 14, 2026. On July 21, 2026, Plaintiffs notified the court of a settlement in principle and moved to stay the case. The court granted the motion by order on July 23, 2026. 

As of August 2026, this case is ongoing.

Summary Authors

Cara Claflin (3/29/2025)

Augusto Colín (3/18/2026)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63270233/parties/disability-rights-south-carolina-v-richland-county/


Judge(s)
Attorney for Plaintiff

Bame, Annie Day (South Carolina)

Cox, Sarah Jean (South Carolina)

Attorney for Defendant

Cox, Alfred Johnston (South Carolina)

Jones, Eleanor Lasseigne (South Carolina)

Jordan, Laura Watkins (South Carolina)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Documents in this case
1

8:22-cv-01358

Complaint

April 28, 2022

April 28, 2022

Complaint
99

8:22-cv-01358

Second Amended Complaint

Disability Rights South Carolina et al. v. Richland County

April 17, 2024

April 17, 2024

Complaint
115

8:22-cv-01358

Plaintiff Disability Rights South Carolina's Motion for Injunctive Relief

July 22, 2024

July 22, 2024

Pleading / Motion / Brief
124

8:22-cv-01358

Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification

Sept. 5, 2024

Sept. 5, 2024

Pleading / Motion / Brief
178

8:22-cv-01358

Defendant's Motion and Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment

Jan. 15, 2025

Jan. 15, 2025

Pleading / Motion / Brief
179

8:22-cv-01358

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment

Jan. 15, 2025

Jan. 15, 2025

Pleading / Motion / Brief
198

8:22-cv-01358

Order Adopting the Report and Recommendation and Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction

March 31, 2025

March 31, 2025

Order/Opinion

2025 WL 951905

220

8:22-cv-01358

Order Adoping the Reports and Recommentations as Provided Herein, Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, and Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification

Sept. 23, 2025

Sept. 23, 2025

Order/Opinion

2025 WL 2702055

231

8:22-cv-01358

Defendant's Notice of Death and Moion and Memorandum in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss C.D.'s Claims

Jan. 23, 2026

Jan. 23, 2026

Pleading / Motion / Brief

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63270233/disability-rights-south-carolina-v-richland-county/

Last updated July 28, 2026, 8:11 p.m.

ECF Number Date Description Link
1 April 28, 2022

COMPLAINT against Richland County ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ASCDC-10464992.), filed by Disability Rights South Carolina. Service due by 7/27/2022 (sgri) (Entered: 04/28/2022)

Clearinghouse
3 April 28, 2022

Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Disability Rights South Carolina. (sgri) (Entered: 04/28/2022)

RECAP
4 April 28, 2022

Summons Issued as to Richland County. (sgri) (Entered: 04/28/2022)

RECAP
5 April 28, 2022

TRUE DIVISION FOR TRIAL: COLUMBIA. (sgri) (Entered: 04/28/2022)

RECAP
April 28, 2022

True Division for Trial

8 May 4, 2022

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Disability Rights South Carolina. Richland County served on 4/29/2022, answer due 5/20/2022. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Service on Defendant)(Cox, Sarah Jean) (Attachment 1 replaced to correct scanned vs. converted pdf document on 5/4/2022) (sgri). (Entered: 05/04/2022)

RECAP
9 May 20, 2022

ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Richland County.(Lindemann, Andrew) (Entered: 05/20/2022)

RECAP
10 May 20, 2022

Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Richland County.(Lindemann, Andrew) (Entered: 05/20/2022)

RECAP
11 May 23, 2022

CONFERENCE AND SCHEDULING ORDER Rule 26(f) Conference Deadline 6/13/2022, 26(a) Initial Disclosures due by 6/27/2022, Rule 26 Report due by 6/27/2022, Motions to Amend Pleadings due by 7/18/2022, Plaintiffs ID of Expert Witness due by 8/17/2022, Defendants ID of Expert Witnesses Due by 9/16/2022, Records Custodian Affidavit due by 9/16/2022, Discovery due by 11/15/2022, Motions due by 1/17/2023, Mediation Due by 12/15/2022, This case is subject to being called for jury selection and trial thirty (30) days following the issuance of a Report and Recommendation on any motion described in paragraph 9 of this Order, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin on 5/23/2022. (sgri) (Entered: 05/23/2022)

RECAP
12 June 13, 2022

AMENDED COMPLAINT against Richland County, filed by Disability Rights South Carolina. Service due by 9/12/2022 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plaintiff List) (Andrews, Stuart) (Entered: 06/13/2022)

1 Exhibit Plaintiff List

View on PACER

Clearinghouse
13 June 13, 2022

MOTION to Seal Document 12 Amended Complaint by Disability Rights South Carolina. Response to Motion due by 6/27/2022. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. No proposed order.Motions referred to Jacquelyn D Austin.(Andrews, Stuart) (Entered: 06/13/2022)

RECAP
15 June 14, 2022

TEXT ORDER granting 13 motion to seal Exhibit A to the Amended Complaint under seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin on 6/14/2022. (sgri) (Entered: 06/14/2022)

RECAP
16 June 14, 2022

Sealed Document in re document 12 . (Cox, Sarah Jean) (Entered: 06/14/2022)

RECAP
June 14, 2022

Order on Motion to Seal Document

17 June 16, 2022

Plaintiff's Local Rule 26.03 Answers to Interrogatories by A.C., Disability Rights South Carolina, H.M., J.H..(Cox, Sarah Jean) (Entered: 06/16/2022)

RECAP
18 June 27, 2022

Joint Rule 26(f) Report by Richland County, A.C., J.H., H.M., Disability Rights South Carolina. (Lindemann, Andrew) Modified on 6/27/2022: to add joint filers as listed (kmca). (Entered: 06/27/2022)

RECAP
19 June 27, 2022

ANSWER to 12 Amended Complaint by Richland County.(Lindemann, Andrew) (Entered: 06/27/2022)

RECAP
20 June 28, 2022

CONSENT AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER; Motions to Amend Pleadings due by 9/16/2022, Plaintiffs ID of Expert Witness due by 2/17/2023, Defendants ID of Expert Witnesses Due by 4/17/2023, Records Custodian Affidavit due by 3/17/2023, Discovery due by 6/19/2023, Motions due by 7/17/2023, Mediation Due by 6/30/2023. All other dates set out. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D Austin on 6/28/22. (rweb, ) (Entered: 06/28/2022)

RECAP
22 Sept. 12, 2022

Consent MOTION for Confidentiality Order by A.C., Disability Rights South Carolina, H.M., J.H.. Response to Motion due by 9/26/2022. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Redline Version of Confidentiality Order)Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel.Motions referred to Jacquelyn D Austin.(Cox, Sarah Jean) (Entered: 09/12/2022)

RECAP
24 Sept. 13, 2022

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER FILED, granting 22 Consent MOTION for Confidentiality Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D Austin on 9/13/22. (rweb, ) (Entered: 09/13/2022)

RECAP
25 Sept. 14, 2022

Consent MOTION to Amend/Correct 20 Scheduling Order, by A.C., Disability Rights South Carolina, H.M., J.H.. Response to Motion due by 9/28/2022. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel.Motions referred to Jacquelyn D Austin.(Cox, Sarah Jean) (Entered: 09/14/2022)

RECAP
27 Sept. 21, 2022

TEXT ORDER denying 25 consent motion to amend/correct Scheduling Order. As an initial matter, because the parties seek to extend only one deadline in the Amended Scheduling Order, the parties may file a motion for extension of time as to that deadline and a new Scheduling Order is not required. See Local Civil Rule 6.01, D.S.C. Additionally, the Court is not inclined to set a deadline that is tied to when Plaintiff receives discovery responses from Defendant. However, the parties may file a motion to extend the deadline for parties to move to join other parties and amend the pleadings and provide a date certain for the proposed extended deadline. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D Austin on 9/21/22.(rweb, ) (Entered: 09/21/2022)

RECAP
Sept. 21, 2022

Order on Motion to Amend/Correct

28 Oct. 10, 2022

MOTION to Compel Discovery and Incorporated Memorandum in Support by A.C., Disability Rights South Carolina, H.M., J.H.. Response to Motion due by 10/24/2022. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - 1st Requests for Production, # 2 Exhibit 2 - 2nd Requests for Production, # 3 Exhibit 3 - Partial Response, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Request for Extension, # 5 Exhibit 5 - Extension Granted, # 6 Exhibit 6 - Email dated 8/24/22, # 7 Exhibit 7 - Email dated 8/29/22, # 8 Exhibit 8 - Email dated 9/7/22, # 9 Exhibit 9 - Email dated 9/9/22, # 10 Exhibit 10 - Email dated 9/9/22, # 11 Exhibit 11 - Email dated 9-12/22, # 12 Exhibit 12 - Email dated 9/15/22, # 13 Exhibit 13 - Email dated 10/4/22, # 14 Exhibit 14 - Email dated 10/5/22, # 15 Exhibit 15 - Email dated 10/5/22, # 16 Exhibit 16 - Email dated 10/5/22, # 17 Exhibit 17 - Email dated 10/5/22, # 18 Exhibit 18 - Email dated 10/5/22, # 19 Exhibit 19 - Email dated 10/5/22, # 20 Exhibit 20 - Email dated 10/5/22, # 21 Exhibit 21 - Email dated 10/5/22, # 22 Exhibit 22 - Photocopy of CD)No proposed order.Motions referred to Jacquelyn D Austin.(Cox, Sarah Jean) (Entered: 10/10/2022)

RECAP
29 Oct. 11, 2022

TEXT ORDER directing Defendant Richland County to respond to Plaintiff's 28 Motion to compel discovery by October 19, 2022, at 5 pm. Plaintiff's response should address the issues raised in the motion to allow the Court to address the merits of the motion and the request for sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D Austin on 10/11/22. (rweb, ) (Entered: 10/11/2022)

RECAP
Oct. 11, 2022

Order

30 Oct. 19, 2022

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 28 MOTION to Compel Discovery and Incorporated Memorandum in Support by Richland County. Response to Motion due by 11/2/2022. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit: October 19, 2022 Emails with Plaintiffs' Counsel)No proposed order.Motions referred to Jacquelyn D Austin.(Lindemann, Andrew) (Entered: 10/19/2022)

RECAP
32 Oct. 19, 2022

TEXT ORDER granting 30 Motion for extension of time. Defendant Richland County's response to the 28 Motion to compel is due on or before October 26, 2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D Austin on 10/19/22.(rweb, ) (Entered: 10/19/2022)

RECAP
Oct. 19, 2022

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

33 Oct. 26, 2022

RESPONSE in Opposition re 28 MOTION to Compel Discovery and Incorporated Memorandum in Support Response filed by Richland County.Reply to Response to Motion due by 11/2/2022 Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. (Attachments: # 1 Defendant's Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Production)(Lindemann, Andrew) (Entered: 10/27/2022)

RECAP
34 Oct. 27, 2022

NOTICE of Appearance by Annie Day Bame on behalf of A.C., Disability Rights South Carolina, H.M., J.H. (Bame, Annie) (Entered: 10/27/2022)

RECAP
35 Nov. 2, 2022

Response in Support of Motion

RECAP
36 Nov. 2, 2022

REPLY to Response to Motion re 28 MOTION to Compel Discovery and Incorporated Memorandum in Support Response filed by A.C., Disability Rights South Carolina, H.M., J.H.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - News Article, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Email Between Counsel)(rweb, ) re-filed by clerk to correct event type (rweb, ) (Entered: 11/02/2022)

RECAP
37 Nov. 2, 2022

DELETION OF DOCKET ENTRY NUMBER 35 Reason: Refiled by clerk to correct event type. Corrected Filing Document Number 36 Modified filing date to that of original filing: 11/2/22 (rweb, ) (Entered: 11/02/2022)

RECAP
Nov. 2, 2022

Entry Deletion

38 Dec. 13, 2022

ORDER; based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff's motion to compel Doc. 28 is GRANTED. Defendant is Ordered to fully supplement its responses to the First and Second Set of Discovery within (30) days of the entry of this Order. Additionally, within ten (10) days of the entry of this Order, Defendant shall meet and confer with Plaintiffs and agree upon a Qualified Protective Order for submission to the Court. Finally, Plaintiffs are directed to file an itemized request for attorney's fees related to the filing of this motion within fifteen (15) days of the entry of this Order. Any response to the request for fees by Defendant is due within ten (10) days of the filing of the request. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D Austin on 12/13/22.(rweb, ) (Entered: 12/13/2022)

RECAP
40 Dec. 27, 2022

PROTECTIVE ORDER FILED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D Austin on 12/27/22. (rweb, ) (Entered: 12/27/2022)

RECAP
41 Dec. 27, 2022

MOTION for Attorney Fees by A.C., Disability Rights South Carolina, H.M., J.H.. Response to Motion due by 1/10/2023. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Sarah J.M. Cox)No proposed order.Motions referred to Jacquelyn D Austin.(Cox, Sarah Jean) (Entered: 12/27/2022)

RECAP
43 Jan. 18, 2023

ORDER; In light of the Johnson factors and the degree of success obtained by Plaintiffs' counsel, Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees is GRANTED and Plaintiffs are awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $11,164.60. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D Austin on 1/18/23.(rweb, ) (Entered: 01/19/2023)

RECAP
44 Jan. 30, 2023

NOTICE of Appearance by David A Pennington on behalf of A.C., Disability Rights South Carolina, H.M., J.H. (Pennington, David) (Entered: 01/30/2023)

RECAP
45 Feb. 10, 2023

MOTION to Amend/Correct 20 Scheduling Order, by A.C., Disability Rights South Carolina, H.M., J.H.. Response to Motion due by 2/24/2023. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Proposed Order)Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel.Motions referred to Jacquelyn D Austin.(Cox, Sarah Jean) (Entered: 02/10/2023)

RECAP
46 Feb. 10, 2023

MOTION Request for Status Conference by A.C., Disability Rights South Carolina, H.M., J.H.. Response to Motion due by 2/24/2023. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-Defendant's 3rd Supp Response, # 2 Exhibit 2-Defendant's 4th Supp Response, # 3 Exhibit 3-Deficiency Letter, # 4 Exhibit 4-Emails between Counsel, # 5 Exhibit 5-Defendant's 5th Supp Response, # 6 Exhibit 6-Statement re ASGDC, # 7 Exhibit 7-Media Report, # 8 Exhibit 8-Email to Opposing Counsel)No proposed order.Motions referred to Jacquelyn D Austin.(Cox, Sarah Jean) (Entered: 02/10/2023)

RECAP
47 Feb. 13, 2023

TEXT ORDER granting 46 Request for status conference. Counsel for Defendant Richland County is required to have in attendance a representative from Richland County available who can either produce or answer questions regarding the outstanding discovery. Counsel for Defendant shall be prepared to show cause why additional sanctions should not be imposed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D Austin on 2/13/23.(rweb, ) (Entered: 02/13/2023)

RECAP
48 Feb. 13, 2023

NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference set for 2/17/2023 02:30 PM in Columbia # 6, Matthew J. Perry, Court House, 901 Richland St, Columbia before Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D Austin. (rweb, ) (Entered: 02/13/2023)

RECAP
Feb. 13, 2023

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

Feb. 13, 2023

Notice of Hearing

49 Feb. 16, 2023

RESPONSE to Discovery Request from Plaintiffs by Richland County. (Attachments: # 1 Supporting Documents 01-First Supp. Resp. to Plaintiffs' RFP (I), # 2 Supporting Documents 02-Second Supp. Resp. to Plaintiffs' RFP (I), # 3 Supporting Documents 03-First Supp. Resp. to Plaintiffs' RFP (II), # 4 Supporting Documents 04-Third Supp. Resp. to Plaintiffs' RFP (I), # 5 Supporting Documents 05-Second Supp. Resp. to Plaintiffs' RFP (II))(Lindemann, Andrew) (Entered: 02/16/2023)

RECAP
50 Feb. 17, 2023

RESPONSE in Support re 45 MOTION to Amend/Correct 20 Scheduling Order, Response filed by Richland County. (Lindemann, Andrew) (Entered: 02/17/2023)

RECAP
52 Feb. 21, 2023

Minute Entry. Status conference held before Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin regarding discovery disputes. Text Order to be filed. Status Conference held on 2/21/2023. (rweb, ) (Entered: 02/21/2023)

RECAP
53 Feb. 21, 2023

TEXT ORDER directing the parties (a) to comply with the following directions from the Court, (b) to meet and confer about outstanding discovery issues, and (c) to file a status report by March 6, 2023, outlining any unresolved issues. As a result of the status conference held on February 17, 2023: (1) Plaintiffs shall create a list of Bates # documents that were identified in discovery responses but have not been received by Plaintiffs; (2) Defendant shall then re-produce those Bates # documents; (3) Defendant shall produce the annual operating budgets responsive to RFP set 1 number 23; (4) Defendant shall be more specific in discovery responses and identify specific pages of manuals that are responsive to individual discovery requests; (5) Plaintiffs' IT consultant and Defendant's IT department and/or representative shall meet to determine the scope of documents available electronically that are responsive to discovery requests; (6) Defendant shall determine the best way to review paper documents and whether it needs Plaintiffs to assist in the process of reviewing paper documents; and (7) Defendant shall pay, by March 14, 2023, the attorneys' fees awarded on January 18, 2023 Doc. 43 . To the extent Defendant asserts that it should not pay the attorneys' fees award because of a potential appeal, the Court is unaware of any controlling federal case law supporting Defendant's position, see Bolus v. Fleetwood RV, Inc., 646 F. App'x 316 (4th Cir. 2016) (holding that the plaintiff's failure to comply with a pre-trial order to pay defendants' attorney fees warranted a sanction of dismissal), nor has Defendant sought reconsideration of the Court's attorney's fees award or raised objections about the award to the district judge in this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D Austin on 2/21/23. (rweb, ) (Entered: 02/21/2023)

RECAP
55 Feb. 21, 2023

TEXT ORDER granting in part 45 motion to amend/correct Scheduling Order. The Court will file Plaintiffs' proposed amended scheduling order as modified by the Court such that the mediation deadline falls before the motions deadline. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D Austin on 2/21/23.(rweb, ) (Entered: 02/21/2023)

RECAP
Feb. 21, 2023

Order

Feb. 21, 2023

Status Conference

Feb. 21, 2023

Order on Motion to Amend/Correct

56 Feb. 22, 2023

SECOND AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Motions to Amend Pleadings due by 4/17/2023, Plaintiffs ID of Expert Witness due by 10/31/2023, Defendants ID of Expert Witnesses Due by 1/16/2024, Records Custodian Affidavit due by 1/16/2024, Discovery due by 3/15/2024, Mediation Due by 4/17/2024, Motions due by 6/3/2024. All other dates set out. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D Austin on 2/21/23. (kmca) (Entered: 02/22/2023)

RECAP
57 March 6, 2023

STATUS REPORT by A.C., Disability Rights South Carolina, H.M., J.H.. (Cox, Sarah Jean) (Entered: 03/06/2023)

RECAP
58 March 7, 2023

TEXT ORDER directing the parties to file a joint status report advising the Court regarding the status of any remaining outstanding discovery issues in this matter by March 14, 2023. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D Austin on 3/7/23. (rweb, ) (Entered: 03/07/2023)

RECAP
March 7, 2023

Order

60 March 14, 2023

STATUS REPORT by A.C., Disability Rights South Carolina, H.M., J.H.. (Andrews, Stuart) (Entered: 03/14/2023)

RECAP
61 May 5, 2023

NOTICE of Appearance by John T Lay on behalf of Richland County (Lay, John) (Entered: 05/05/2023)

RECAP
62 May 5, 2023

NOTICE of Appearance by Alfred Johnston Cox on behalf of Richland County (Cox, Alfred) (Entered: 05/05/2023)

RECAP
63 May 5, 2023

NOTICE of Appearance by Laura Watkins Jordan on behalf of Richland County (Jordan, Laura) (Entered: 05/05/2023)

RECAP
64 May 5, 2023

NOTICE of Appearance by Lindsay Anne Joyner on behalf of Richland County (Joyner, Lindsay) (Entered: 05/05/2023)

RECAP
65 May 5, 2023

NOTICE of Appearance by James Clayton Mitchell, III on behalf of Richland County (Mitchell, James) (Entered: 05/05/2023)

RECAP
66 May 5, 2023

NOTICE of Appearance by Eleanor Lasseigne Jones on behalf of Richland County (Jones, Eleanor) (Entered: 05/05/2023)

RECAP
67 June 28, 2023

MOTION for Order to Show Cause Why Correct Care Solutions, LLC Should Not be Held in Contempt by A.C., Disability Rights South Carolina, H.M., J.H.. Response to Motion due by 7/12/2023. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Subpoena to Correct Care Solutions, LLC)No proposed order.Motions referred to Jacquelyn D Austin.(Cox, Sarah Jean) (Entered: 06/28/2023)

RECAP
68 June 29, 2023

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by A.C., Disability Rights South Carolina, H.M., J.H. re 67 MOTION for Order to Show Cause Why Correct Care Solutions, LLC Should Not be Held in Contempt (Cox, Sarah Jean) (Entered: 06/29/2023)

RECAP
69 July 19, 2023

TEXT ORDER denying with leave to refile 67 Plaintiffs' motion for rule to show cause as to Correct Care Solutions, LLC. Plaintiffs allege that they properly served a subpoena on Correct Care's registered agent on April 28, 2023, and that Correct Care has neither filed objections to the subpoena nor responded to the same by the deadline May 12, 2023. [Doc. 67 at 1-2.] The Court construes Plaintiffs' motion as one to compel compliance with the subpoena. See, e.g., Trs. of the Chicago Reg. Council of Carpenters Fund v. Drive Constr., No. 1:19-cv-2965, 2023 WL 429047, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 26, 2023) ([E]ven in cases where a party failed to submit written objections to a subpoena... courts have found that the more prudent practice for the court is to issue [an order compelling compliance] before entertaining a motion for contempt.). Plaintiffs, however, have failed to include any indication in their motion that they attempted to confer or conferred with Correct Care to secure the information or material without Court intervention prior to filing this motion. See, e.g., Boukadoum v. Hubanks, 239 F.R.D. 427, 431 (D. Md. 2006) ([W]here counsel subpoenas documents from a non- party, especially a health care provider, and the documents are not forthcoming on the appointed date, counsel must engage in a good faith effort to secure the non-party's compliance before filing a motion to compel and must certify to the effort made as part of the motion to compel.) Furthermore, it is unclear whether the current motion to compel is timely in accordance with Local Rule 37.01 or whether Correct Care actually received notice of the subpoena as no proof of communication with Correct Care supporting an extension of the deadline is attached, and no documents concerning service of the subpoena are attached to the motion. See Chromadex, Inc. v. Elysium Health, Inc., No. 2:21-mc-00010-DCN, 2021 WL 859649, at **2--3 (D.S.C. Mar. 8, 2021) (applying Local Rule 37.01 to a motion to compel compliance with a subpoena to produce documents). Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D Austin on 7/19/2023.(kric, ) (Entered: 07/19/2023)

RECAP
July 19, 2023

Order on Motion to Show Cause

70 Oct. 5, 2023

Consent MOTION to Amend/Correct 56 Scheduling Order, by A.C., Disability Rights South Carolina, H.M., J.H.. Response to Motion due by 10/19/2023. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel.Motions referred to Jacquelyn D Austin.(Andrews, Stuart) (Entered: 10/05/2023)

RECAP
71 Oct. 10, 2023

NOTICE of Hearing: Telephone Conference set for 10/11/2023 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D Austin. Parties are to provide the call-in information. (rweb, ) (Entered: 10/10/2023)

RECAP
Oct. 10, 2023

Notice of Hearing

72 Oct. 11, 2023

TEXT ORDER denying 70 motion to Amend/Correct Second Amended Scheduling Order and staying deadlines in Second Amended Scheduling Order until the status conference scheduled for November 21 at 11 a.m. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D Austin on 10/11/23.(rweb, ) (Entered: 10/11/2023)

RECAP
73 Oct. 11, 2023

Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D Austin: Telephone Conference held on 10/11/2023. (rweb, ) (Entered: 10/11/2023)

RECAP
74 Oct. 11, 2023

NOTICE of Hearing: Telephone Conference set for 11/21/2023 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D Austin. The parties are to provide the call-in information to the Austin ECF inbox at least one day prior to hearing. (rweb, ) (Entered: 10/11/2023)

RECAP
Oct. 11, 2023

Notice of Hearing

Oct. 11, 2023

Telephone Conference

Oct. 11, 2023

Order on Motion to Amend/Correct

76 Oct. 18, 2023

TEXT ORDER During a telephone conference held on October 11, 2023, the Court directed the parties to meet and confer concerning whether Plaintiffs' experts would have the authority to interview Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center staff during inspections conducted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b) and directing Plaintiffs, if the parties could not agree, to file any motion requesting such authority by October 18, 2023. The Court now has been informed that the parties have, to this point, not been able to agree and that Plaintiffs would like an opportunity to conduct the discovery necessary to appropriately narrow the scope of the motion. While Defendants oppose the substance of Plaintiffs' request for interviews, they do not oppose Plaintiffs' request to extend the deadline for this motion. Understanding Plaintiffs' reasoning, the Court grants Plaintiffs until December 18, 2023, to file any motion requesting the authority at issue. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D Austin on 10/18/23. (rweb, ) (Entered: 10/18/2023)

RECAP
Oct. 18, 2023

Order

78 Nov. 16, 2023

NOTICE of RE-SCHEDULED Hearing: Telephone Conference set for 11/21/2023 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D Austin. The parties are to provide the call-in information to the Austin ECF inbox at least one day prior to hearing.(rweb, ) (Entered: 11/16/2023)

RECAP
Nov. 16, 2023

Notice of Hearing

79 Nov. 21, 2023

Minute Entry. TEXT ORDER to follow. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D Austin: Telephone Conference held on 11/21/2023. (rweb, ) (Entered: 11/21/2023)

RECAP
80 Nov. 21, 2023

TEXT ORDER extending to January 5, 2024, the deadline for the filing by Plaintiffs of any motion requesting that their experts be authorized to interview Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center staff during inspections conducted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b). Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D Austin on 11/21/23. (rweb, ) (Entered: 11/21/2023)

RECAP
Nov. 21, 2023

Order

Nov. 21, 2023

Telephone Conference

81 Dec. 6, 2023

THIRD AMENDED SCHEDULING SCHEDULING ORDER Motions to Amend Pleadings due by 1/15/2024, Plaintiffs ID of Expert Witness due by 4/30/2024, Defendants ID of Expert Witnesses Due by 7/31/2024, Records Custodian Affidavit due by 9/30/2024, Discovery due by 9/30/2024, Motions due by 11/15/2024, Mediation Due by 8/31/2024. All other dates as set out. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D Austin on 12/6/23. (rweb, ) (Entered: 12/06/2023)

RECAP
82 Jan. 5, 2024

MOTION Inspection Schedule/Timing/Specifics by A.C., Disability Rights South Carolina, H.M., J.H.. Response to Motion due by 1/19/2024. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Inspection Request, # 2 Exhibit B-Email Between Counsel, # 3 Exhibit C-Nicole Johnson CV, # 4 Exhibit D-Nicole Johnson Declaration, # 5 Exhibit E-Kenneth Ray CV, # 6 Exhibit F-Kenneth Ray Declaration, # 7 Exhibit G-Emmit Sparkman CV, # 8 Exhibit H-Emmit Sparkman Declaration, # 9 Exhibit I-Kenneth Ray Supplemental Declaration)No proposed order.Motions referred to Jacquelyn D Austin.(Bame, Annie) (Entered: 01/05/2024)

RECAP
83 Jan. 8, 2024

TEXT ORDER Defendant's response to 82 Plaintiffs' motion inspection schedule/timing/specifics is due by 5pm on January 12, 2024. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D Austin on 1/8/24. (rweb, ) (Entered: 01/08/2024)

RECAP
Jan. 8, 2024

Order

85 Jan. 12, 2024

Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Amend Pleadings and Join Parties by A.C., Disability Rights South Carolina, H.M., J.H.. Response to Motion due by 1/26/2024. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. No proposed order.Motions referred to Jacquelyn D Austin.(Bame, Annie) (Entered: 01/12/2024)

RECAP
86 Jan. 12, 2024

RESPONSE in Opposition re 82 MOTION Inspection Schedule/Timing/Specifics Response filed by Richland County.Reply to Response to Motion due by 1/19/2024 Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Andrews & Cox Email Exchange, # 2 Exhibit B - Affidavit of Crayman Harvey)(Cox, Alfred) (Entered: 01/12/2024)

RECAP
87 Jan. 16, 2024

TEXT ORDER granting 85 Plaintiffs' motion for extension. Motions to join other parties and amend the pleadings now shall be filed no later than January 29, 2024. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D Austin on 1/16/24.(rweb, ) (Entered: 01/16/2024)

RECAP
Jan. 16, 2024

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Amend

89 Jan. 22, 2024

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 82 Motion for Inspection Schedule/Timing/Specifics as set out. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D Austin on 1/22/24.(alew) (Entered: 01/22/2024)

RECAP
90 Jan. 26, 2024

Case Reassigned to Judge Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III. Judge Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D Austin no longer assigned to the case. (cwil, ) (Entered: 01/26/2024)

RECAP
91 Jan. 30, 2024

First MOTION to Amend/Correct 12 Amended Complaint by Disability Rights South Carolina. Response to Motion due by 2/13/2024. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Second Amended Complaint)No proposed order.Motions referred to Thomas E Rogers, III.(Bame, Annie) (Main Document 91 and attachment are replaced on 1/30/2024 to correct filing errors) (dsto) (Main Document 91 and attachment replaced on 2/20/2024 with documents provided by filing user to correct filing errors) (dsto, ) (Entered: 01/30/2024)

RECAP
92 Feb. 13, 2024

Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 91 First MOTION to Amend/Correct Amended Complaint by Richland County. Response to Motion due by 2/27/2024. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. No proposed order.Motions referred to Thomas E Rogers, III.(Joyner, Lindsay) (Entered: 02/13/2024)

RECAP
93 Feb. 23, 2024

TEXT ORDER granting 92 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to 91 First MOTION to Amend/Correct. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 02/23/2024.(dsto, ) (Entered: 02/23/2024)

RECAP
96 April 10, 2024

Case Reassigned to Judge Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant. Judge Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III no longer assigned to the case. Motions referred to Bristow Marchant.(cwil, ) (Entered: 04/10/2024)

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory:

South Carolina

Case Type(s):

Disability Rights

Jail Conditions

Mental Health (Facility)

Key Dates

Filing Date: April 28, 2022

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

A disability rights non-profit on behalf of incarcerated individuals at Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Non-profit NON-religious organization

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

County

Richland County

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.

Constitutional Clause(s):

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Due Process

Other Dockets:

District of South Carolina 8:22-cv-01358

Available Documents:

Complaint (any)

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: None Yet / None

Relief Sought:

Attorneys fees

Declaratory judgment

Injunction

Relief Granted:

None yet

Source of Relief:

None yet

Issues

General/Misc.:

Assault/abuse by staff

Bathing and hygiene

Bathrooms

Conditions of confinement

Neglect by staff

Sanitation / living conditions

Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)

Discrimination Basis:

Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)

Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:

Administrative segregation

Crowding (General)

Disciplinary segregation

Recreation / Exercise

Restraints (physical)

Solitary confinement/Supermax (conditions or process)

Recommended Citation