Case: Jerry M. v. District of Columbia

On March 1, 1985, a class of juveniles confined at juvenile detention centers operated by the District of Columbia ("the District") filed a lawsuit against the District under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. They alleged unconstitutional conditions of confinement in violation of the juveniles' Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights. Plaintiffs specifically challenged the conditions of confinement at Cedar Knoll Youth Center and Oak Hill Youth Center, both in Laurel, Maryland, alleging that the facilities at Cedar Knoll were unfit for habitation and that rehabilitative services, including educational and vocational training services, mental health and medical services, and social and recreational services, were unconstitutionally and statutorily inadequate at both Centers. The complaint further alleged that a climate of violence existed at both Centers, and that policies concerning attorney-client communication and family visitation at both Centers violated the juveniles' rights. The plaintiffs, represented by the Public Defender Service and the ACLU National Prison Project, sought declaratory and injunctive relief.

On July 24, 1986, the Superior Court (Honorable Ricardo M. Urbina) approved and entered a consent decree ("the Decree"). The consent decree established a panel of three experts to determine the correct number of juveniles in the District in need of secure confinement, and develop a system for appropriate care of these juveniles. The Decree established procedural rules for staff discipline and training, recordkeeping, and discipline of juveniles; set forth detailed requirements for diagnostic procedures, cottage life, recreational, mental health, and social services, as well as education and vocational training programs; and required the District to submit a plan and timetable for resolving environmental health and safety concerns.

The Clearinghouse only has appellate decisions describing subsequent litigation, but it is clear that extensive litigation over the scope of the Decree followed. Following the panel's submission of a plan to the court, and the court's orders pursuant to this plan, the District appealed. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Chief Judge Rogers) found that the trial judge had exceeded his authority under the scope of the decree in certain respects. 571 A.2d 178 (D.C. Ct. App. 1990). The court of appeals did, however, find that the trial judge had not erred in finding that the District had "failed to meet its basic commitment under the Decree," and in imposing sanctions.

On September 5, 1990, the D.C. Court of Appeals (Judge Farrell) affirmed the lower court's ruling that plaintiffs' attorneys could be awarded fees for their work enforcing the Decree, but remanded the issue to the trial court because it had failed to adequately explain its reasoning as to the amount of fees awarded. 580 A.2d 1270 (D.C. Ct. App. 1990). Attorney's fees litigation continued over several years. In 1996, the plaintiffs' attorney submitted a bill for work done during the months of April, May, and June, 1996. Defendants contested, arguing that fees for any work done after passage of the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") were subject to the PLRA fee cap. The District Court (Judge Richard A. Levie) held that the PLRA did not apply to juvenile facilities, but on September 3, 1998, the D.C. Court of Appeals (Judge Schwelb) reversed, holding that the PLRA's limitation on attorney fee awards did apply to attorneys whose clients were confined juveniles and that the fee cap did not violate due process. 717 A.2d 866 (D.C. 1998).

Meanwhile, on June 24, 1997, the D.C. Superior Court appointed a Special Master to assist the defendants "in identifying and correcting deficiencies in the provision of educational services required by the Consent Decree," because the defendants had repeatedly failed to bring the educational systems at the Centers into compliance with the Decree. In August 1998, the Special Master expressed concern over "certain personnel, resource, and training issues" at the Oak Hill Center, and the trial court appointed a receiver "to assume, ultimate control over the education system at Oak Hill.'" The District appealed, and the D.C. Court of Appeals (per curiam) held that, while the District had not fully complied with the Decree, there was not a sufficient basis for the imposition of such an extraordinary remedy. 738 A.2d 1206 (D.C. 1999). On May 15, 2000, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. 529 U.S. 1118 (2000).

The consent decree remained in effect for several subsequent decades. In 2015, the parties settled part of the case and agreed that the court would have less oversight responsibility going forward.

On February 5, 2020, the parties settled the remainder of the case and agreed to end the consent decree. The District pointed to various improvements it had made over the years, such as establishing a Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services, closing facilities (including Oak Hill) and opening new facilities, adding medical and behavioral health services, education, and other rehabilitative resources, and making facilities safer. The settlement required the District to create an Office of Independent Juvenile Justice Facilities Oversight (OIJJFO), which would make sure that the District was still meeting the goals of the consent decree. The court approved this settlement later that year, and the consent decree was terminated.

The OIJJFO was created in 2021, and the settlement mandated that it operate for at least three years. In November 2023, the District decided to fund the OIJJFO until at least September 2024. Subsequent news reports indicated that the OIJJFO would be funded through 2025 as well. These extensions of the OIJJFO occurred after allegations about dangerous conditions within the District's youth facilities, including staffing shortages, excessive confinement, sexual assault, and violent fights.