Filed Date: Feb. 23, 1977
Closed Date: Oct. 22, 1996
Clearinghouse coding complete
On February 23, 1977, inmates of state prisons in Lansing and Hutchinson, Kansas filed a class action lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the State of Kansas in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The plaintiffs, represented by the Washburn University School of Law Legal Clinic and Legal Services for Prisoners, alleged that prison overcrowding violated their constitutional rights. The prisoners claimed that double-celling, outdoor dormitories, the conditions of protective custody, the conditions of administrative segregation, and inadequate mental health care, endangered their health, safety, and welfare.
On May 15, 1980, the parties entered a consent decree, under which the State agreed to ask the American Correctional Association to accredit the Kansas State Penitentiary (later renamed the Lansing Correctional Facility) and to house inmates in individual cells or closely-supervised shared rooms. Once the Penitentiary was accredited, the plaintiffs would dismiss their complaint.
On January 26, 1988, the plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for the District of Kansas (Judge Richard D. Rogers) to modify and enforce the consent decree. On February 15, 1989, the court ordered the State to develop short- and long-term plans to address the prison's weakness in respect to mentally ill inmates, protective custody, and administrative segregation. On April 13, 1989, the court also compelled the State to strategically address overcrowding. One element of the State's long-term plan was the construction of the El Dorado Correctional Facility. On May 17, 1991, the court approved double-celling and population increases for some Kansas prisons, but not for others. Arney v. Finney, 766 F. Supp. 934 (D. Kan. 1991).
Once the El Dorado Correctional Facility was constructed, Kansas began relocating inmates from overcrowded facilities. The State limited the quantity of personal property including legal work that each prisoner could move. Because the court believed that the plaintiffs' claim was weak, the court refused to issue a temporary restraining order enjoining the prison to transfer all legal materials. Porter v. Finney, No. 77-3045-R, 1991 WL 284141 (D. Kan. Dec. 9, 1991).
On June 28, 1994, the court interpreted the State's long-term plan for improving administrative segregation to require that the State determine prison privileges for each segregated inmate individually. Porter v. Finney, 857 F. Supp. 65 (D. Kan. 1994). On December 19, 1995, the court tentatively approved the State's request to resume double-celling in accordance with standards promulgated by the American Correctional Association. Porter v. Graves, No. 77-3045-RDR, 1995 WL 775301 (D. Kan. Dec. 19, 1995). The court reasoned that consent decrees and court orders should be interpreted in the spirit they were intended, and that the intent was to force Kansas prisons to meet national standards for prison quality.
The court also ruled on a number of petitions addressed to intervener status and pleadings entered by unnamed plaintiffs. Porter v. Finney, No. 77-3045-R, 1991 WL 126724 (D. Kan. June 28, 1991), Arney v. Finney, 967 F.2d 418 (10th Cir. 1992), Porter v. Finney, No. 77-3045-R, 1991 WL 264514 (D. Kan. Nov. 4, 1991).
On October 22, 1996, the court entered a final order incorporating prior tentative orders and closing the case, allowing the parties to raise issues under the newly enacted Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The court also awarded plaintiffs’ counsel attorneys’ fees and expenses for work performed between July 1994 and October 1996.
In March 1999, the court denied a motion to reopen the case filed by an inmate, finding no grounds to revive the litigation.
In 2015, the court (Senior Judge Sam A. Crow) denied several pro se inmates’ motions to enforce the consent decree, construing them as motions to intervene and concluding that no ongoing enforceable relief remained.
Between 2019 and 2020, additional pro se inmates filed motions seeking appointment of new counsel and reconsideration; the court denied these motions and reaffirmed that the case remained closed.
Summary Authors
Elizabeth Chilcoat (6/2/2006)
Kerry Holihan (10/21/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72257104/parties/arney-v-finney/
Barceleau, Kathleen M. (Kansas)
Bonebrake, Carol R. (Kansas)
Allen, Marion (Kansas)
Benford, Kendrick (Kansas)
Bradshaw, Calvin (Kansas)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72257104/arney-v-finney/
Last updated March 21, 2026, 4:41 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Feb. 23, 1977
Closing Date: Oct. 22, 1996
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Inmates of state prisons in Lansing and Hutchinson, Kansas.
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: Unknown
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
State
State of Kansas
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
District of Kansas 3:77-cv-03045
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 91-03235
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 91-03295
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 91-03237
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration: 1980 - 1996
Issues
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Case Summary of Arney v. Bennett, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/713/ (last updated 10/21/2025).