Case: Campbell v. McGruder

1:71-cv-01462 | U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Filed Date: July 21, 1971

Closed Date: 2004

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On July 21, 1971, pre-trial detainees at the District of Columbia Jail filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the mayor of the District of Columbia and jail officials. The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief for a long list of violations of the inmates' Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment Constitutional rights. These included overcrowding, inadequate food, denial of access to counsel, inadequate medical services…

On July 21, 1971, pre-trial detainees at the District of Columbia Jail filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the mayor of the District of Columbia and jail officials. The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief for a long list of violations of the inmates' Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment Constitutional rights. These included overcrowding, inadequate food, denial of access to counsel, inadequate medical services, lack of contact with community, and lack of programs to allow inmates to maintain employment prior to trial. Plaintiffs were represented by attorneys of the Public Defender Service of the District of Columbia. In later proceedings, the plaintiffs were represented by the D.C. Prisoners' Legal Services Project, Inc.

In 1975 and 1976, the district court entered several orders enjoining conditions of confinement in the jail On March 21, 1975, the court (Judge William B. Bryant) ordered the jail to reduce overcrowding and implement procedures concerning the release of inmates prior to trial. On November 5, 1975, the Judge Bryant ordered the jail to direct local authorities to inspect the jail for health and safety violation, to provide clean clothing and linens, to provide pre-trial detainees with daily outdoor recreation and monthly medical exams, and to implement a new restraint policy. Campbell v. McGruder, 416 F. Supp. 100 (D.D.C. 1975). Judge Bryant entered another order addressing overcrowding on May 24, 1976. Campbell v. McGruder, 416 F. Supp. 111 (D.D.C. 1976). On March 30, 1978, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed (Judge David L. Bazelon) these orders with respect to the issue of overcrowding and remanded the other orders for clarification. Campbell v. McGruder, 188 U.S. App. D.C. 258 (D.C. Cir. 1978). On remand, the court vacated the part of the previous orders that prohibited the practice of double celling and provided additional security and limits on when this practice occurred. Campbell v. McGruder, 554 F. Supp. 562 (D.D.C. 1982).

On July 13, 1985, the district court prohibited the jail from accepting any inmates until the population of the facility was reduced. In August 22, 1985, the parties reached a Stipulation to Reduce the Population of the DC Jail providing detailed guidelines for population reduction. On March 11, 1987, the court found the District of Columbia in contempt for failure to follow the order and stipulation.

In 1990, Judge Bryant ordered the jail to present a plan to improve health care conditions. On March 4, 1993, after the plaintiffs filed a motion for contempt, the district court ordered the defendants to immediately employ a psychologist and correctional officers trained in mental health care and develop chronic disease clinics within the jail. The defendants failed to comply with portions of this order and the district court (Judge Bryant) appointed a Special Officer. Based on the Special Officer's reports, the court found the defendants in contempt with regards to medical and mental health care. On March 16, 1994, the Special Officer presented a detailed plan to improve these conditions, which the district court ordered the defendants to implement. The court later appointed a Receiver to oversee the implementation of the plan. Over the following years, litigation continued regarding fees and contempt motions. Numerous progress reports were filed with the court.

On July 7, 2003, Judge Bryant granted a motion to dismiss the cases, terminating all injunctive relief pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (per curium) affirmed this decision on March 9, 2004, finding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a current constitutional violation as required by the PLRA. Campbell v. McGruder, 86 Fed. Appx. 426 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

Summary Authors

Angela Heverling (6/9/2007)

Related Cases

Inmates of D.C. Jail v. Jackson, District of Columbia (1975)

U.S. v. District of Columbia, District of Columbia (1988)

Battle v. D.C., District of Columbia (1999)

People


Judge(s)

Bazelon, David L. (District of Columbia)

Bryant, William Benson (District of Columbia)

Garland, Merrick B. (District of Columbia)

Henderson, Karen LeCraft (District of Columbia)

Leventhal, Harold (District of Columbia)

MacKinnon, George Edward (District of Columbia)

Williams, Stephen Fain (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Bronstein, Alvin J. (District of Columbia)

Dean, Benjamin M. (District of Columbia)

Diaz, Teresa (District of Columbia)

Judge(s)

Bazelon, David L. (District of Columbia)

Bryant, William Benson (District of Columbia)

Garland, Merrick B. (District of Columbia)

Henderson, Karen LeCraft (District of Columbia)

Leventhal, Harold (District of Columbia)

MacKinnon, George Edward (District of Columbia)

Williams, Stephen Fain (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Bronstein, Alvin J. (District of Columbia)

Dean, Benjamin M. (District of Columbia)

Diaz, Teresa (District of Columbia)

Duggan, James E. (District of Columbia)

Gannon , Jonathan Walter (District of Columbia)

Hickey, J. Patrick (District of Columbia)

Hilleboe, Douglas (District of Columbia)

Jacobs, Alice M. (Louisiana)

Levick, Marsha (District of Columbia)

Litt, Barrett S. (California)

Lopez, Mark J. (District of Columbia)

Lotke, Eric Robert (Virginia)

McClymont, Mary E. (District of Columbia)

More, John H. (District of Columbia)

Ney, Steven (Maryland)

Pittman, Shaw (District of Columbia)

Smith, Jonathan Mark (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Axelrod, Jon P. (District of Columbia)

Barton, Richard W. (District of Columbia)

Chernoff, Paul (District of Columbia)

Flyer, David A. (District of Columbia)

Goldfard, Ronald L. (District of Columbia)

Lefstein, Norman (District of Columbia)

Lerner, Jacques Phillip (District of Columbia)

Love, Richard Stuart (District of Columbia)

Miller, Nicholas Patrick (Maryland)

Neidrich, Thomas R. (District of Columbia)

Nelson, Mollie (District of Columbia)

Payton, John A. (District of Columbia)

Reischel, Charles L. (District of Columbia)

Risher, John R. Jr. (District of Columbia)

Robbins, Louis P. (District of Columbia)

Schwab, Edward E. (District of Columbia)

Suda, John H. (District of Columbia)

Sutton, David P. (District of Columbia)

Taylor, William W. III (District of Columbia)

Utiger, Robert C. (District of Columbia)

Wilson, Mary L. (District of Columbia)

Zielinski, Michael Edward (District of Columbia)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

1:71-cv-01462

Docket (PACER)

March 9, 2004

March 9, 2004

Docket

1:71-cv-01462

Complaint for Injunction, Declaratory Judgment and Other Appropriate Relief

Stokes v. Rodgers

Jan. 1, 1971

Jan. 1, 1971

Complaint

1:71-cv-01462

Complaint for Injunction, Declaratory Judgment and Other Appropriate Relief

Campbell v. Rodgers

July 16, 1971

July 16, 1971

Complaint

1:71-cv-01462

Consent Order

Campbell v. Rodgers

Nov. 10, 1971

Nov. 10, 1971

Order/Opinion

1:71-cv-01462

Amended Consent Order

Jan. 11, 1972

Jan. 11, 1972

Order/Opinion

1:71-cv-01462

First Amended Complaint for Injunction, Declaratory Judgment and other Appropriate Relief

Campbell v. Rodgers

March 2, 1972

March 2, 1972

Complaint

1:71-cv-01462

Order

Oct. 13, 1972

Oct. 13, 1972

Order/Opinion

1:71-cv-01462

SECOND AMENDED CONSENT ORDER

April 17, 1974

April 17, 1974

Order/Opinion

1:71-cv-01462

Memorandum and Order

March 21, 1975

March 21, 1975

Order/Opinion

75-01350

Order

U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

May 20, 1975

May 20, 1975

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

Last updated July 20, 2022, 3:08 a.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: District of Columbia

Case Type(s):

Jail Conditions

Special Collection(s):

Court-ordered receiverships

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: July 21, 1971

Closing Date: 2004

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Pre-trial detainees at the District of Columbia Jail.

Attorney Organizations:

ACLU National (all projects)

ACLU National Prison Project

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

District of Columbia (District of Columbia), City

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Due Process

Equal Protection

Self-incrimination

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 1975 - 2004

Content of Injunction:

Receivership

Issues

General:

Access to lawyers or judicial system

Bathing and hygiene

Food service / nutrition / hydration

Recreation / Exercise

Restraints : chemical

Restraints : physical

Sanitation / living conditions

Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)

Crowding:

Crowding / caseload

Medical/Mental Health:

Medical care, general

Mental health care, general

Type of Facility:

Government-run