Case: Goff v. Harper

4:90-cv-30365 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa

Filed Date: July 6, 1990

Closed Date: 2006

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On July 6, 1990, an inmate at Iowa State Prison filed a lawsuit against prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa alleging Eighth and Eleventh Amendment violations. Plaintiff specifically alleged the defendants' disciplinary procedures and policies violated inmates' constitutional rights.On December 14, 1993, plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction requesting that certain prison officials not be involved in any of …

On July 6, 1990, an inmate at Iowa State Prison filed a lawsuit against prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa alleging Eighth and Eleventh Amendment violations. Plaintiff specifically alleged the defendants' disciplinary procedures and policies violated inmates' constitutional rights.

On December 14, 1993, plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction requesting that certain prison officials not be involved in any of his disciplinary matters. The court (Judge Donald E. O'Brien) granted the injunction and defendants appealed. In May and August of 1994, plaintiff's case went to trial. In November 2004, plaintiff filed a second request for a preliminary injunction, asking the court to prohibit prison officials from denying inmates in lockup a time reduction from their lockup time. The district court granted the injunction and prison officials once again appealed. This court stayed the appeal until the district court issued its final ruling in the case.

On June 2, 1995, Goff moved for class certification, which was granted on September 13, 1995. The class was comprised of past, present or future inmates confined in Iowa State Prison lockup. On July 26, 1995, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (Judge Theodore McMillian) found that the district court had abused its discretion and vacated the injunction and remanded the case. Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518 (8th Cir. 1995). A second trial was held in March and May of 1996.

After the second trial, the district court (Judge O'Brien) granted the motion of Goff and the other inmates to amend the Complaint alleging constitutional violations concerning mental health and lack of exercise for those confined to lockup.

On June 5, 1997, the district court (Judge O'Brien) filed an order setting forth findings of fact and conclusions of law relating to constitutional violations by the Iowa State Penitentiary. The court found four constitutional violations: 1) the violation of substantive due process resulting from the extraordinarily long lockup sentences; 2) the violation of the Eighth Amendment resulting from the inadequate mental health treatment received by mentally ill and mentally disordered inmates; 3) the violation of the Eighth Amendment resulting from the deprivation of exercise for inmates in lockup during the winter months; and 4) the violation of the Eighth Amendment resulting from the pandemonium and bedlam the mentally stable inmates must suffer because they are intermingled with the mentally ill inmates who either cannot or do not control their behavior. The court directed prison officials to file a plan to remedy the constitutional violations at Iowa State Prison.

On August 4, 1999, after consideration of three other plans, the court (Judge O'Brien) approved the fourth plan filed by prison officials. Goff v. Harper, 59 F. Supp.2d 910 (S.D. Iowa 1999). The court also found that a 200-bed special needs unit, once fully constructed and staffed, would remedy the Eighth Amendment violations. In the process of establishing a plan to correct the alleged violations, prison officials found existing consent decrees at Iowa State Prison that may require them to seek court permission to implement their plan. Because of the earlier consent decrees, Prison Officials filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

On September 20, 1999, the district court (Judge O'Brien) denied their motion. Defendants appealed, and on December 19, 2000 the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals (Judge Donald Pomery Lay) held that Court would remand case to District Court to determine whether prison's restrictions upon inmates' rights were reasonable. Goff v. Harper, 235 F.3d 410 (8th Cir. 2000).

On October 15, 2001, the district court (Judge O'Brien) filed an order stating that it did have subject matter jurisdiction and that the injunctive relief set forth in the fourth plan was necessary to protect inmates' constitutional rights. On November 21, 2001, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals sua sponte vacated its December 19, 2000, judgment and issued an expedited briefing schedule. Goff v. Haprer, 272 F.3d 1114 (8th Cir. 2001). However, the reinstated appeal was closed by the court on January 30, 2002.

On January 20, 2004 the court (Magistrate Judge Ross A. Walters) withdrew a motion to reopen without prejudice. The docket ends on June 7, 2006. We have no further information on this case.

Summary Authors

Emilee Baker (10/16/2006)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/11637890/parties/goff-v-harper/


Judge(s)

Arnold, Richard Sheppard (Arkansas)

Bennett, Mark W. (Iowa)

Fagg, George Gardner (Iowa)

Lay, Donald Pomery (Minnesota)

Loken, James B. (Minnesota)

Longstaff, Ronald Earl (Iowa)

McMillian, Theodore (Missouri)

O'Brien, Donald Eugene (Iowa)

Walters, Ross A. (Iowa)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Bremer, Celeste F. (Iowa)

Judge(s)

Arnold, Richard Sheppard (Arkansas)

Bennett, Mark W. (Iowa)

Fagg, George Gardner (Iowa)

Lay, Donald Pomery (Minnesota)

Loken, James B. (Minnesota)

Longstaff, Ronald Earl (Iowa)

McMillian, Theodore (Missouri)

O'Brien, Donald Eugene (Iowa)

Walters, Ross A. (Iowa)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Bremer, Celeste F. (Iowa)

Ingram, Patrick E. (Iowa)

Mears, Philip B. (Iowa)

Schwartz, Barbara A. (Iowa)

Sobel, Scott A. (Iowa)

Walke, Jason (Iowa)

Whiston, John B. (Iowa)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Allen, Gordon E. (Iowa)

Campbell, Bonnie Jean (Iowa)

Ensign, Kristin W. (Iowa)

Miller, Thomas J. (Iowa)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

4:90-cv-50365

Docket (PACER)

June 7, 2006

June 7, 2006

Docket

94-03915

Reported Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

60 F.3d 518

July 26, 1995

July 26, 1995

Order/Opinion
94

4:90-cv-50365

Order

Sept. 13, 1995

Sept. 13, 1995

Order/Opinion
172

4:90-cv-50365

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

1997 WL 34715292

June 5, 1997

June 5, 1997

Order/Opinion
292

4:90-cv-50365

Order

June 21, 1999

June 21, 1999

Order/Opinion
294

4:90-cv-50365

The Plan IV (Proposed Decree)

July 1, 1999

July 1, 1999

Pleading / Motion / Brief
299

4:90-cv-50365

Order

59 F.Supp.2d 910

Aug. 4, 1999

Aug. 4, 1999

Order/Opinion
320

4:90-cv-50365

Order

Sept. 30, 1999

Sept. 30, 1999

Order/Opinion
322

4:90-cv-50365

Decision by Court

Oct. 1, 1999

Oct. 1, 1999

Order/Opinion
325

4:90-cv-50365

Order

Oct. 18, 1999

Oct. 18, 1999

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/11637890/goff-v-harper/

Last updated Aug. 15, 2022, 3:20 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link

Add and Terminate Judges

Aug. 2, 2021

Aug. 2, 2021

PACER

Add and Terminate Judges

Aug. 2, 2021

Aug. 2, 2021

PACER

Add and Terminate Judges

Aug. 2, 2021

Aug. 2, 2021

PACER

Add and Terminate Judges

Aug. 2, 2021

Aug. 2, 2021

PACER
557

Miscellaneous Relief

Aug. 2, 2021

Aug. 2, 2021

PACER
557

Miscellaneous Relief

Aug. 2, 2021

Aug. 2, 2021

PACER
557

Miscellaneous Relief

Aug. 2, 2021

Aug. 2, 2021

PACER
557

Miscellaneous Relief

Aug. 2, 2021

Aug. 2, 2021

PACER
558

Response/Resistance to Motion

Aug. 16, 2021

Aug. 16, 2021

PACER
558

Response/Resistance to Motion

Aug. 16, 2021

Aug. 16, 2021

PACER
558

Response/Resistance to Motion

Aug. 16, 2021

Aug. 16, 2021

PACER
558

Response/Resistance to Motion

Aug. 16, 2021

Aug. 16, 2021

PACER
559

Notice of Appearance

Aug. 19, 2021

Aug. 19, 2021

PACER
559

Notice of Appearance

Aug. 19, 2021

Aug. 19, 2021

PACER
559

Notice of Appearance

Aug. 19, 2021

Aug. 19, 2021

PACER
559

Notice of Appearance

Aug. 19, 2021

Aug. 19, 2021

PACER
560

Miscellaneous Relief

Aug. 26, 2021

Aug. 26, 2021

PACER
560

Miscellaneous Relief

Aug. 26, 2021

Aug. 26, 2021

PACER
560

Miscellaneous Relief

Aug. 26, 2021

Aug. 26, 2021

PACER
560

Miscellaneous Relief

Aug. 26, 2021

Aug. 26, 2021

PACER
561

Notice - Other

Aug. 27, 2021

Aug. 27, 2021

PACER
561

Notice - Other

Aug. 27, 2021

Aug. 27, 2021

PACER
561

Notice - Other

Aug. 27, 2021

Aug. 27, 2021

PACER
561

Notice - Other

Aug. 27, 2021

Aug. 27, 2021

PACER
562

Reconsideration

Sept. 15, 2021

Sept. 15, 2021

PACER
562

Reconsideration

Sept. 15, 2021

Sept. 15, 2021

PACER
562

Reconsideration

Sept. 15, 2021

Sept. 15, 2021

PACER
562

Reconsideration

Sept. 15, 2021

Sept. 15, 2021

PACER
563

Response/Resistance to Motion

Sept. 16, 2021

Sept. 16, 2021

PACER
563

Response/Resistance to Motion

Sept. 16, 2021

Sept. 16, 2021

PACER
563

Response/Resistance to Motion

Sept. 16, 2021

Sept. 16, 2021

PACER
563

Response/Resistance to Motion

Sept. 16, 2021

Sept. 16, 2021

PACER
564

Reconsideration

Sept. 20, 2021

Sept. 20, 2021

PACER
564

Reconsideration

Sept. 20, 2021

Sept. 20, 2021

PACER
564

Reconsideration

Sept. 20, 2021

Sept. 20, 2021

PACER
564

Reconsideration

Sept. 20, 2021

Sept. 20, 2021

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Iowa

Case Type(s):

Prison Conditions

Key Dates

Filing Date: July 6, 1990

Closing Date: 2006

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

All past, present and future inmates confined in the Iowa State Penitentiary Lockup.

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: Yes

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Iowa State Penitentiary (Fort Madison), State

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Due Process

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Mixed

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 1999 - 0

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief granted

Issues

General:

Classification / placement

Conditions of confinement

Disciplinary procedures

Disciplinary segregation

Recreation / Exercise

Affected Gender:

Male

Medical/Mental Health:

Mental health care, general

Type of Facility:

Government-run