Filed Date: Oct. 1, 1993
Closed Date: 2004
Clearinghouse coding complete
On October 1, 1993, a group of female prisoners of the District of Columbia filed a class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the District of Columbia Department of Corrections in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages, alleging that their constitutional rights had been violated by sexual abuse from prison staff, who they claimed had used physical force and threats of physical force to make them engage in sexual activity. They also alleged that the male prison staff invaded their privacy by entering their living areas without announcing their presence (which was against the defendants' internal policy), sexually harassed them, raped them, and created a "hostile, sexualized environment" that subjected to mental anguish and exacerbated the negative effects of the abuse that most of these women had suffered in their personal lives before they got to jail. They alleged that the Department of Corrections failed to properly investigate and handle reports of this nature, making them liable for the abuse that occurred. In addition, they complained of deprivation of obstetrical and gynecological care, basic sanitation needs, basic shelter needs, fire hazards, poor nutrition, lack of educational programs and work opportunities, lack of religious programs, lack of recreation, and lack of clean clothing.
On December 1, 1993, the District Court (Judge June L. Green) certified the case as a class action, and the plaintiffs were allowed to proceed with their identities being kept a secret in order to protect them from retaliation in the prisons. The Court held a bench trial in mid-June 1994, and on December 13, 1994, the Court granted declaratory and injunctive relief to the plaintiffs, holding that the plaintiffs' rights had been violated by sexual harassment, inadequate living conditions, poor medical care, and a lack of educational, recreational, and religious opportunities (compared to those offered to men). The Court gave the defendants six months to bring their prison up to a constitutional standard in these areas. Women Prisoners of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections v. DC, 877 F.Supp. 634 (D.D.C. 1994).
Shortly after this order was entered, the defendants announced a cost-saving plan premised on the closure of the Modular Facility at Lorton, Virginia, and the double-celling of the CTF, a facility that houses male and female prisoners. On January 26, 1995, the plaintiffs asked the Court to enjoin the defendants from implementing this plan until they had demonstrated that it would not threaten the safety and well-being of the women prisoners at the CTF, impede the implementation of the Court's previous order, or result in a violation of any consent decree. The parties agreed to have the Court's Special Officer evaluate the double-celling plan. When the Special Officer evaluated the defendants' plan, she found it unacceptable, concluding that the CTF could not safely accommodate double-celling and that it had substantial deficiencies in the conditions of confinement.
On March 15, 1995, the Court ordered the defendants to institute mandatory training on sexual harassment for all staff members who worked with female prisoners, and five months later, the Court further ordered the prison to hire a health educator with appropriate training in obstetrics and gynecology in a half-time position to provide clinical and health services to the female prisoners, as well as a nurse practitioner, a physician's assistant, or a nurse midwife. The Court ordered the prison not to use any restraints on a woman in labor, during delivery, or in recover after a delivery, and the Court ordered them not to use restraints on a woman in her third trimester unless she has demonstrated a history of assaultive behavior or escape. Women Prisoners of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections v. DC, 899 F.Supp. 659 (D.D.C. 1995). The defendants appealed this order.
On August 30, 1996, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Judge Buckley) partially vacated the District Court's order and remanded the case. The DC Circuit held that the availability of fewer programs to female inmates than male inmates did not violate equal protection, that the order setting the population cap was too broad, that the correctional officials could be ordered to comply with the inmate grievance procedures, and that officials could be ordered not to retaliate against inmates who complained of sexual harassment. Women Prisoners of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections v. DC, 93 F.3d 910 (D.C.Cir. 1996).
On June 22, 1998, the plaintiffs asked the District Court to hold the defendants in contempt for disobey the Court's orders, alleging that the defendants had not implemented the required remedies in the areas of sexual misconduct, environmental and fire safety, and programming. Seven days later, the parties met to discuss and resolve the plaintiffs' concerns. On October 1, 1998, the parties jointly submitted a status report regarding these negotiations. The report informed the court that they had made "considerable progress" resolving their disagreements, and that they intended to continue their discussion.
The Pacer docket has a five-year gap at this point, but it picks back up on July 19, 2004, when the parties entered into a consent motion to dismiss the case with prejudice, which was granted by the District Court (Judge Emmet G. Sullivan) on September 9, 2004.
Summary Authors
Kristen Sagar (4/7/2009)
Buckley, James Lane (District of Columbia)
Green, June Lazenby (District of Columbia)
Rogers, Judith Ann Wilson (District of Columbia)
Abbate, Julie K. (District of Columbia)
Brake, Deborah (District of Columbia)
Brown, Caroline M. (District of Columbia)
Eve, Leccia Roberta (District of Columbia)
Kim, Reenah L. (District of Columbia)
Smith, Brenda Verndenia (District of Columbia)
Stevenson, Lisa J. (District of Columbia)
Buckley, James Lane (District of Columbia)
Green, June Lazenby (District of Columbia)
Rogers, Judith Ann Wilson (District of Columbia)
Abbate, Julie K. (District of Columbia)
Brake, Deborah (District of Columbia)
Brown, Caroline M. (District of Columbia)
Eve, Leccia Roberta (District of Columbia)
Kim, Reenah L. (District of Columbia)
Smith, Brenda Verndenia (District of Columbia)
Stevenson, Lisa J. (District of Columbia)
Thomas, Tracy A. (District of Columbia)
Amato, Maria-Claudia T. (District of Columbia)
Baldwin-White, Brenda (District of Columbia)
Clark, Karla (District of Columbia)
Earle, William J. (District of Columbia)
Ferrante, Teresa A. (District of Columbia)
Ferren, John M. (District of Columbia)
Hopson, Mark Daniel (District of Columbia)
Jackson, Gregory (District of Columbia)
Lopes, Grace Michele (District of Columbia)
Love, Richard Stuart (District of Columbia)
Nickles, Peter J. (District of Columbia)
Payton, John A. (District of Columbia)
Pinkston, Garland Jr. (District of Columbia)
Prager, Lutz Alexander (District of Columbia)
Ray, John Lamar (District of Columbia)
Reischel, Charles L. (District of Columbia)
Ruiz, Vanessa (District of Columbia)
Schwab, Edward E. (District of Columbia)
Seitz, Virginia A. (District of Columbia)
Spagnoletti, Robert J. (District of Columbia)
Valentine, George C. (District of Columbia)
Wheeler, Edwin H. (California)
Zielinski, Michael Edward (District of Columbia)
Claiborne, William Charles III (District of Columbia)
Thaxton-Fox, Gloria D. (Virginia)
Last updated May 13, 2022
State / Territory: District of Columbia
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Oct. 1, 1993
Closing Date: 2004
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
female prisoners of the District of Columbia
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
District of Columbia Department of Corrections (District of Columbia, District of Columbia), Federal
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Availably 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
Order Duration: 1994 - 2004
Issues
General:
Food service / nutrition / hydration
Sanitation / living conditions
Sex w/ staff; sexual harassment by staff
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Crowding:
Discrimination-basis:
Affected Gender:
Medical/Mental Health:
Type of Facility: