Case: Cason v. Seckinger

5:84-cv-00313 | U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia

Filed Date: July 13, 1984

Closed Date: Feb. 25, 2002

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

on July 13, 1984, inmates at the Middle Georgia Correctional Complex filed a class action lawsuit under 42 USC Sec. 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. A class was certified of all male and female inmates presently or in the future housed at the facility. The inmates, represented in part by Georgia Legal Services, sought injunctive relief to address an array of alleged unconstitutional conditions. Specifically, they cited sexual abuse and harassment of female in…

on July 13, 1984, inmates at the Middle Georgia Correctional Complex filed a class action lawsuit under 42 USC Sec. 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. A class was certified of all male and female inmates presently or in the future housed at the facility. The inmates, represented in part by Georgia Legal Services, sought injunctive relief to address an array of alleged unconstitutional conditions. Specifically, they cited sexual abuse and harassment of female inmates, inadequate classification systems, excessive force, violence and verbal abuse, stripping and restraints on mentally ill inmates, illegal stripping of inmates, inadequate staffing, poor structural and physical plant conditions, poor medical, dental and mental health service, deficient food service, inadequate access to the courts, unlawful visitation, mail and telephone practices, inadequate fire, occupational and health safety, insufficient vocational programs, lack of exercise and recreation, personal property regulations, racial and religious discrimination, inadequate disciplinary and grievance procedures, overcrowding, among other complaints. Several other cases were consolidated into this case, including Aziz et al v. Whitworth et al., No. 88-00291, and Spivey et al v. Dept. of Corrections, No. 91-00028. The case was resolved through a series of consent decrees designed to remedy the unconstitutional conditions. Fourteen consent decrees were entered beginning in 1990 and ending in 1996.

On November 12, 1998, prison officials filed a motion to vacate and terminate all remaining consent decrees given the enactment of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires courts to terminate prospective relief upon defendants' motion under certain conditions. The district court (Judge Claude W. Hicks, Jr.) in 1999 partially granted the motion to terminate as it pertained to enforcement of the existing decree, and denied the inmates' motion to amend their compliant. On appeal, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (Judge Edward Earl Carnes) vacated the district court's ruling as to termination of the decree, and ordered an evidentiary hearing, remanding the case back to the district court to more fully determine the provisions of the decree that were to be terminated. Cason v. Seckinger, 231 F.3d 777 (11th Cir. 2000). Following motions, on February 25, 2002, the district court (Judge Hicks) entered a final judgment terminating the case. A subsequent motion for contempt was denied in 2003, and a later claim for relief by a pro se class member was also denied and appeal rejected in 2004 due to a lack of filing fee.

Summary Authors

Denise Lieberman (10/23/2005)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5122787/parties/cason-v-seckinger/


Judge(s)

Barkett, Rosemary (Florida)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Burnette, Lisa Boardman (Georgia)

Attorney for Defendant

Amideo, William F. (Georgia)

Baker, Thurbert E. (Georgia)

Basurto, Mark A. (Florida)

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

5:84-cv-00313

Docket (PACER)

Nov. 17, 2004

Nov. 17, 2004

Docket

99-11125

Reported Opinion

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Oct. 24, 2000

Oct. 24, 2000

Order/Opinion

231 F.3d 777

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5122787/cason-v-seckinger/

Last updated Aug. 17, 2025, 10:40 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1029

ORDER DENYING 1028 Motion to Attach for Contempt. Ordered by Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 8/16/2011. (tlh)

Aug. 16, 2011

Aug. 16, 2011

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory: Georgia

Case Type(s):

Prison Conditions

Key Dates

Filing Date: July 13, 1984

Closing Date: Feb. 25, 2002

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

all male and female inmates presently or in the future housed at the Middle Georgia Correctional Complex

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Georgia Department of Corrections, State

Facility Type(s):

Government-run

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Due Process: Procedural Due Process

Due Process: Substantive Due Process

Free Exercise Clause

Freedom of speech/association

Equal Protection

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 1990 - 1996

Issues

General/Misc.:

Access to lawyers or judicial system

Classification / placement

Counseling

Disciplinary procedures

Education

Fire safety

Food service / nutrition / hydration

Loss or damage to property

Mail

Phone

Religious programs / policies

Sanitation / living conditions

Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)

Totality of conditions

Discrimination Basis:

Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)

Race discrimination

Sex discrimination

Affected Sex/Gender(s):

Female

Male

Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:

Assault/abuse by staff (facilities)

Crowding (General)

Law library access

Recreation / Exercise

Restraints (physical)

Sex w/ staff; sexual harassment by staff

Visiting

Medical/Mental Health Care:

Dental care

Medical care, general

Mental health care, general