Case: Duvall v. Glendening (Duvall v. Hogan)

1:94-cv-02541 | U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

Filed Date: Sept. 14, 1994

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

COVID-19 Summary: On April 9, 2020, the plaintiffs in this longstanding litigation filed an emergency motion for COVID-19 mitigation measures at a Maryland jail. They sought a release plan, testing, plans for testing and treatment, and the ability to social distance. On July 2, 2020, the court ordered the defendants to develop a written plan for taking care of inmates who were at a heightened risk of serious illness or death from COVID-19. The court ordered additional mitigation measures on Jul…

COVID-19 Summary: On April 9, 2020, the plaintiffs in this longstanding litigation filed an emergency motion for COVID-19 mitigation measures at a Maryland jail. They sought a release plan, testing, plans for testing and treatment, and the ability to social distance. On July 2, 2020, the court ordered the defendants to develop a written plan for taking care of inmates who were at a heightened risk of serious illness or death from COVID-19. The court ordered additional mitigation measures on July 21, however, the order was stayed for 45 days starting on January 14, 2021.


FULL Summary

This case was brought in 1976 in the federal district court for the District of Maryland under Section 1983 by inmates at the Baltimore City Jail against both state and city officials of the Baltimore, Maryland prison system. The plaintiffs complained of overcrowding and conditions of confinement at the Baltimore City Jail, which resulted in a consent agreement setting capacity limitations, eliminating double celling and providing other services.

In April 1981, the case was consolidated with Collins v. Schoonfield, a class action brought by pre-trial detainees of the Baltimore City Jail that had earlier resulted in an interim decree setting standards of confinement. Some of the conditions at issue in Collins were over quality of food and medical care, religious freedom, access to books and other reading materials, jail facilities and policies that had an adverse affected on representation by counsel, and unnecessary restrictions on non-legal visits and phone calls. The decree was revised in 1984, 1986 and 1988. In 1991, the State assumed control of the Baltimore City Jail, requiring further modifications to the decree. These modifications were agreed upon in the 1993 Revised Consolidation Decree. The 1993 decree established requirements for housing, inmate services, communications, access to courts, grievances and discipline. The decree also required the designation of a Director of Court Compliance to monitor the implementation of the decree. The case was reassigned to Judge J. Frederick Motz and in 1994, for reasons that are not evident, given the new docket number 94-cv-02541 (the new docket begins with a direction for the clerk to institute a new case “beginning with pleading #619 in case JFM−76−1255” and to close that case).

At some point prior to 1994, the National Prison Project of the ACLU agreed to represent plaintiffs.

In 2002, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to address the excessive heat at the Women’s Detention Center of the Baltimore City Detention Center. On August 16, 2002, Judge Andre M. Davis granted a temporary restraining order addressing the issue. On August 22, 2002, the court issued a consent order that required the defendants to implement a “comprehensive protocol for intake screening to identify detainees who are susceptible to heat-related injury.”

In late 2003, the plaintiffs asked the court to restore the case to the active docket. Thereafter, on April 23, 2004, the defendants filed a renewed motion to terminate the revised consolidated decree. On August 31, 2004, the court restored the case to the active docket. Subsequently, the parties began conducting discovery and preparing for a hearing with regard to the defendants’ motion. The parties acknowledged that the defendants had made improvements, such as the air conditioning at the Women’s Detention Center, and that the parties desired and expected further improvements.

In 2009, the parties reached a partial settlement agreement (PSA), and the court approved the agreement on November 10, 2009. The agreement covered all areas of dispute, except for how to protect detainees with high security or high-medium security classifications from heat injury. The parties agreed to let the court resolve that issue. On April 6, 2010, the court approved the final partial settlement agreement (PSA).

In 2011, the case was reassigned to Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander, who approved an amendment to the partial settlement on May 8, 2012, settling all of the substantive matters and conditionally dismissing the case. On April 7, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees.

The PSA provided that, if the defendants failed to achieve compliance with its substantive agreements, Plaintiffs could file a motion to reopen the case within two years of the time of court approval. The PSA allows the defendants to oppose a reopening of the case, but only on the ground that the defendants had achieved compliance with its contested provisions. Under the amended PSA, the time for the plaintiffs to file a motion to reopen was June 30, 2013. But later, the parties stipulated to extensions of the PSA to June 3, 2015; the court approved those extensions on April 10, 2014, and March 24, 2015.

On October 23, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a notice of noncompliance, formally informing the defendants of their contention that the jail remained noncompliant with the agreement, and entering into settlement discussions. No settlement was forthcoming, and on June 2, 2015, the day before the expiration of their right to reopen, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reopen the case, restore it to the active docket, and grant a preliminary injunction compelling improvements in several areas posing acute dangers to prisoner safety. The plaintiffs alleged a litany of noncompliant incidents, and argued that the failures not only violated the PSA but also the Eighth Amendment.

The parties entered into settlement talks and asked the court to stay the proceedings in the case. On October 26, 2015, the court granted the parties’ motion to stay.

On December 23, 2015, the parties reached a settlement agreement and submitted it to the court for approval. Under the settlement, Maryland agreed to overhaul the jail’s health care system and make major improvements to the facilities, including accommodations for people with disabilities. To ensure compliance with the settlement, the parties agreed that the jail’s progress would be assessed by independent monitors. The Court would dismiss the case when all the requirements had been met, or in four years, unless the Court found that jail conditions still violated federal law. The defendants also agreed to pay $450,000 in plaintiff attorneys’ fees and costs.

On January 4, 2016, the court preliminarily approved the settlement, and on June 28, 2016, the court approved the final settlement and attorneys’ fees and costs. The court retained jurisdiction over the case as provided in the settlement agreement.

On February 7, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reopen the case to enforce the settlement agreement in response to the defendants’ lack of compliance regarding the medical or mental health provisions. The next day, the court granted the motion. In March, the parties had a mediation session with the judge and monitors regarding health care policies, procedures, staffing, and oversight mechanisms. This meeting led to the defendants hiring a new Chief of Health Strategy and Operations and Chief of Compliance and Integrity in early April 2018. Additionally, the defendants adopted a new electronic health record system, created new examination rooms for medical and mental health screening, and met with physicians from the University of Maryland Medical System to assist in reviewing current medical practices. These changes were intended to improve the defendants’ ability to comply with the settlement, as explained in the September 7, 2018 status report.

Following the September 7, 2018 status report, the parties filed motions to extend time as the defendants continued their efforts to comply with the settlement agreement.

A settlement conference was held on May 16, 2019 and the parties mutually agreed to an extension of the settlement agreement. On May 28, 2019, the court extended the settlement agreement by two years, to terminate on June 22, 2022, unless the defendants reached substantial compliance prior to that date. The plaintiffs’ motion to reopen the case was withdrawn and ordered moot as well. As of January 2020, the settlement agreement was still in place, the court retained jurisdiction, and this case was ongoing.

COVID-19 Litigation

On April 9, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for COVID-19 mitigation measures. They sought an order requiring the jail to:

  • guarantee inmates the ability to socially distance;
  • formulate a plan to release detainees;
  • provide for regular universal testing of staff and inmates; and
  • provide a written plan for monitoring and treating vulnerable people.
The following day, the plaintiffs notified the court that a staff member at the jail had tested positive for the virus. The court, however, held the emergency motion in abeyance and referred the parties to the magistrate judge for conference.

Following unsuccessful discussions between the parties, the plaintiffs moved on May 20, 2020 to return the emergency motion to the active docket.

On June 19, 2020, the court denied the emergency motion, but ordered the parties to file a status report by June 30 with updated information on conditions in the jail. The court found that although the pandemic carried a substantial risk of serious harm to inmates, the jail had responded reasonably to the health and safety threats. It found that the jail had taken “extraordinary” measures to protect its inmates, including “posting bulletins to educate detainees on the symptoms of COVID-19; canceling visitation; providing all inmates with masks, soap, towels, and alcohol-based hand sanitizer; equipping staff with [personal protective equipment]; cleaning common areas twice per shift; performing frequent temperature checks; quarantining new detainees; isolating infected individuals in a separate unit; and, on at least one occasion, testing all detainees and staff.” While there were certainly further measures the jail could take, the Fourteenth Amendment required only a reasonable response, and the jail’s response had been reasonable.

Notably, the court rejected the jail’s other arguments for dismissal. Jail officials had argued that the emergency motion was not properly before the court, because the plaintiffs had not exhausted administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. (In fact, the plaintiffs had not even attempted to begin the administrative grievance process.) The court indicated, however, that the plaintiffs only had to exhaust available administrative remedies; in the pandemic context, there were remedies available to guarantee timely protection from the threat of illness or death, so the PLRA would not bar the court from intervening. Jail officials had also argued that they had no authority under Maryland law to release inmates who had been committed to their custody by a state court. The court emphatically stated that it would have authority under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, if there were a constitutional violation, to order state officials to release prisoners.

On July 2, 2020, the court ordered the jail to develop a written plan for taking care of inmates who were at heightened risk for serious illness or death from COVID, because the June 30 status reports from the jail and from the plaintiffs had painted “starkly different portraits” of conditions in the jail. The jail had 2 weeks to complete the written plan, and both parties were to file another status report by July 20.

On July 17, 2020, the plaintiffs moved for enforcement of judgment. They alleged that the jail had consistently failed to meet its obligations under earlier settlement agreements, and stated that the jail had conceded as much on February 28, 2020. They requested that the court require the jail to submit a written report within 30 days detailing how it planned to fulfill its obligations. They also requested a 2-year extension of the agreement, to last until June 22, 2024.

On July 21, 2020, the court ordered the jail to take some additional mitigation measures: “Custody staff in close contact with detainees should be tested for COVID-19 on a weekly basis. In addition, each detainee should be provided with two masks.” Additional status reports were ordered, due by August 28, 2020.

Both the plaintiffs and defendants filed status reports regarding COVID-19 at Baltimore City Central Booking and Intake Center on August 28, 2020. The parties agreed on the number of individuals who had tested positive for COVID: as of August 28, 91 staff members, 19 contractual staff, and 139 detainees had tested positive. The plaintiffs also contended in their status report that the defendants were failing to test enough, and failing to provide sufficient PPE or isolate detainees who tested positive for COVID-19. The plaintiffs asked the court to require the defendants to provide monthly status reports on the status of COVID-19 at the center.

The plaintiffs moved for an order requiring monthly status reports on September 22, 2020, and on November 20, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion to enforce the judgment. On January 7, 2021, the defendants moved to temporarily stay the order requiring weekly testing of custody staff. The plaintiffs responded on January 12, and the court granted the defendant's motion on the same day. The weekly testing requirement was stayed for 45 days beginning on January 14, 2021.

In May 2021, the court released an opinion addressing “Plaintiffs’ Motion For Enforcement And Further Relief” and “Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion For Enforcement And Further Relief,” from July 17, 2020, and November 20, 2020, respectively. These motions pertained to concerns about the health, welfare, and safety of individuals held in pretrial detainment at the Baltimore City Detention Center.

Specifically, the May 2021 opinion addressed a motion by plaintiffs asserting that “defendants failed to achieve substantial compliance with the 2015 settlement agreement because of ‘their lack of any incentive to do so.” In this motion, plaintiffs sought various forms of relief, including a court order requiring the government to create a detailed plan with a deadline for achieving compliance with the previous settlement agreement, and an extension of the settlement agreement by two years.

The court granted the motion in part. Pursuant to the 2015 settlement agreement, the Commissioner of the Maryland Division of Pretrial Detention and Services issued a semi-annual compliance report in August 2020. After the issuance of this report, independent medical monitors conducted a separate report, contradicting parts of the Commissioner’s report and finding there was less compliance with the agreement than stated by the Commissioner. The independent report indicated that the detention center fully-complied with only six of the thirty-seven medical provisions required in the settlement agreement.

In response to the Plaintiff's motions for enforcement, the court directed both parties to submit a plan for compliance with each provision of the 2015 settlement agreement, and the court encouraged the parties to submit a joint-plan if possible. The court declared that following this plan, it would establish compliance deadlines for the defendant.

Additionally, the court agreed to extend the settlement agreement by 18 months (though not the full 24 months requested by plaintiffs), setting the new expiration date for December 22, 2023. The court retained jurisdiction for enforcement.

The case continues (the most recent dispute, during the summer of 2021) concerned appointment of a new monitor, after the longstanding monitor resigned.

Summary Authors

Eoghan Keenan (5/25/2005)

Jessica Kincaid (4/1/2016)

Abigail DeHart (10/22/2016)

Emma Himes (11/27/2019)

Gregory Marsh (7/31/2020)

Zofia Peach (2/6/2021)

Betsy Sheppard (11/9/2021)

Related Cases

Collins v. Schoonfield, District of Maryland (1971)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4984390/parties/duvall-v-hogan/


Judge(s)

Gregory, Roger L. (Virginia)

Grimm, Paul William (Maryland)

Hollander, Ellen Lipton (Maryland)

Kaufman, Frank Albert (Maryland)

Messitte, Peter Jo (Maryland)

Motz, J. Frederick (Maryland)

Sullivan, Timothy J. (Maryland)

Traxler, William Byrd Jr. (South Carolina)

Xinis, Paula (Maryland)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Alexander, Elizabeth R. (District of Columbia)

Judge(s)

Gregory, Roger L. (Virginia)

Grimm, Paul William (Maryland)

Hollander, Ellen Lipton (Maryland)

Kaufman, Frank Albert (Maryland)

Messitte, Peter Jo (Maryland)

Motz, J. Frederick (Maryland)

Sullivan, Timothy J. (Maryland)

Traxler, William Byrd Jr. (South Carolina)

Xinis, Paula (Maryland)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Alexander, Elizabeth R. (District of Columbia)

Burt, Marianna I. (Maryland)

Christopher, Gary W. (Maryland)

Dunbaugh, Frank M. III (District of Columbia)

Eber, Gabriel B. (District of Columbia)

Fathi, David Cyrus (District of Columbia)

Fisher, Sally Jean Dworak (Maryland)

Gardner, Debra (Maryland)

Hess, Wendy Noel (Maryland)

Jeon, Deborah A. (Maryland)

Kendrick, Corene Thaedra (California)

Wyda, James (Maryland)

Young, Joseph H. (Maryland)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Arnquist, Lisa O Mara (Maryland)

Brockman, William F. (Maryland)

Casey, Meghan Kathleen (Maryland)

Curran, John Joseph Jr. (Maryland)

Dove, Maureen Mullen (Maryland)

Fader, Matthew J. (Maryland)

Frosh, Brian E. (Maryland)

Gordon, Joan I. (Maryland)

Hoffman, Donald E. (Maryland)

Howard, John Burnside Jr. (Maryland)

Kastendieck, Richard H. (Maryland)

Kennedy, David P. (Maryland)

Levin, Burton H. (Colorado)

Marrow, Glenn Todd (Maryland)

Mullally, Laura (Maryland)

Nathan, Stuart M. (Maryland)

Pothier, Karl Aram (Maryland)

Ruckle, James S. Jr. (Maryland)

Weber, Stephanie Judith Lane (Maryland)

Expert/Monitor/Master

Andrew, Julia Melville (Maryland)

Baucom, Sharon (Maryland)

Beyrer, Chris (Maryland)

Smith, William J. (California)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

1:94-cv-02541

0:04-07518

Docket [PACER]

Duvall v. Hogan

Aug. 19, 2021

Aug. 19, 2021

Docket

1:94-cv-02541

1993 Revised Consolidated Decree

Duvall v. Glendening

July 9, 1993

July 9, 1993

Order/Opinion

00-cv-02416

Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration

Muldrow v. Glendening

2001 WL 34647163

July 19, 2001

July 19, 2001

Order/Opinion

01-07428

Reported Opinion

Muldrow v. Glendening

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

22 Fed.Appx. 292, 2001 U.S.App.LEXIS 26953

Dec. 19, 2001

Dec. 19, 2001

Order/Opinion
80

1:94-cv-02541

Temporary Restraining Order

Duvall v. Glendening

Aug. 16, 2002

Aug. 16, 2002

Order/Opinion
84

1:94-cv-02541

Consent Order

Duvall v. Glendening

Aug. 23, 2002

Aug. 23, 2002

Order/Opinion
374-1

1:94-cv-02541

Partial Settlement Agreement

Duvall v. Glendening

Aug. 18, 2009

Aug. 18, 2009

Settlement Agreement
382

1:94-cv-02541

Order [Approving Settlement Agreement]

Duvall v. Glendening

Oct. 10, 2009

Oct. 10, 2009

Order/Opinion
462

1:94-cv-02541

Report and Reccomendation

Duvall v. Glendening

April 18, 2012

April 18, 2012

Magistrate Report/Recommendation
463

1:94-cv-02541

Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of [First] Amendment to Partial Settlement Agreement

Duvall v. Glendening

May 8, 2012

May 8, 2012

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4984390/duvall-v-hogan/

Last updated Aug. 16, 2022, 3:04 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

MEMORANDUM "DIRECTING" Clerk to institute new case beginning with pleading #619 in case JFM-76-1255 and to close civil action JFM-76-1255. ( signed by Judge J. F. Motz 9/9/94 ) (cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/04/1994)

Sept. 14, 1994

Sept. 14, 1994

PACER
2

MOTION by William Donald Schaefer to Modify 1993 Revised consolidated decree . (cag, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 10/04/1994 (Entered: 10/04/1994)

Sept. 14, 1994

Sept. 14, 1994

PACER
3

NOTICE of Cell Renovation, Maintenance and Upgrade Projects at Baltimore City Detention Center. (cag, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 10/04/1994 (Entered: 10/04/1994)

Sept. 14, 1994

Sept. 14, 1994

PACER
4

JUDGMENT of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourt Circuit, Richmond, VA "AFFIRMING" the Judgment of the U.S. District Court, copy of Opinion attached hereto. Record will be returned under separate cover at a later date. (cag, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 10/04/1994 (Entered: 10/04/1994)

Sept. 14, 1994

Sept. 14, 1994

PACER

Complete record on Appeal returned to U.S. District Court. (cag, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 10/04/1994

Sept. 14, 1994

Sept. 14, 1994

PACER
5

MOTION by Jerome Duvall, et al to reject defendants plan and for further relief and Exhibits. (c/s) (cag, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 10/04/1994 (Entered: 10/04/1994)

Sept. 14, 1994

Sept. 14, 1994

PACER
6

AMENDED MOTION by William Donald Schaefer, et al to Modify 1993 Revised Consolidated Decree . (cag, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 10/04/1994 (Entered: 10/04/1994)

Sept. 14, 1994

Sept. 14, 1994

PACER
7

RESPONSE by William Donald Schaefer, et al in support of [6-1] motion to Modify 1993 Revised Consolidated Decree. (cag, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 10/04/1994 (Entered: 10/04/1994)

Sept. 14, 1994

Sept. 14, 1994

PACER
8

MOTION by William Donald Schaefer, et al to Strike [5-1] motion of Plaintiffs to reject defendants plan and for further relief . (cag, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 10/04/1994 (Entered: 10/04/1994)

Sept. 14, 1994

Sept. 14, 1994

PACER
9

RESPONSE by Jerome Duvall, et al to [6-1] motion of Defendants to Modify 1993 Revised Consolidated Decree. (cag, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 10/04/1994 (Entered: 10/04/1994)

Sept. 14, 1994

Sept. 14, 1994

PACER
10

MOTION by Joseph H. Kaplan, Mary Ellen T. Rinehardt to Quash Subpoenas . (cag, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 10/04/1994 (Entered: 10/04/1994)

Sept. 14, 1994

Sept. 14, 1994

PACER
11

Proposed Amended Appendix B. (cag, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 10/04/1994 (Entered: 10/04/1994)

Sept. 14, 1994

Sept. 14, 1994

PACER
12

RESPONSE by Jerome Duvall to [10-1] motion of Kaplan and Rinehardt to Quash Subpoenas. (cag, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 10/04/1994 (Entered: 10/04/1994)

Sept. 14, 1994

Sept. 14, 1994

PACER
13

MOTION by Bishop L. Robinson, Bernard Smith to Quash Subpoena of Commissioner Lamont Flanagan . (cag, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 10/04/1994 (Entered: 10/04/1994)

Sept. 14, 1994

Sept. 14, 1994

PACER
14

Amended Population Control Plan (cag, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 10/04/1994 (Entered: 10/04/1994)

Sept. 14, 1994

Sept. 14, 1994

PACER
15

MOTION by Bishop L. Robinson, LaMont Flanagan, Bernard Smith to Quash Subpoena of John Camou . (cag, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 10/04/1994 (Entered: 10/04/1994)

Sept. 14, 1994

Sept. 14, 1994

PACER
16

MOTION by Bishop L. Robinson, LaMont Flanagan, Bernard Smith to Quash Subpoena of Secretary Bishop L. Robinson . (cag, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 10/04/1994 (Entered: 10/04/1994)

Sept. 14, 1994

Sept. 14, 1994

PACER
17

MOTION by Bishop L. Robinson, LaMont Flanagan, Bernard Smith to Quash Subpoena of Warden Bernard Smith . (cag, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 10/04/1994 (Entered: 10/04/1994)

Sept. 14, 1994

Sept. 14, 1994

PACER
18

Stipulation Amending Statement by Defendants. (cag, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 10/04/1994 (Entered: 10/04/1994)

Sept. 14, 1994

Sept. 14, 1994

PACER
19

SCHEDULING ORDER (Briefing Schedule) ( signed by Chf Judge J. F. Motz 12/9/94 ) (c/m 12/9/94-gs) (cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/13/1994)

Dec. 9, 1994

Dec. 9, 1994

PACER
20

MOTION with memorandum in support by Jerome Duvall, et al for Order to Show Cause . (c/s) (cag, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 03/21/1995 (Entered: 03/21/1995)

March 21, 1995

March 21, 1995

PACER
21

RESPONSE by William Donald Schaefer, et al to [20-1] motion of Plaintiffs for Order to Show Cause and Memorandum. (c/s) (cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/05/1995)

April 4, 1995

April 4, 1995

PACER
22

MEMORANDUM by Jerome Duvall, et al in opposition to Defendants' Modified Population Control Plan for the Baltimore City Detention Center. (c/s) (cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/03/1995)

May 3, 1995

May 3, 1995

PACER
23

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM by Paris Glendening, et al in support of Modified Population control plan and outstanding May 6, 1994 Motion to Modify Decree to create contingency and other housing for female inmates. (c/s) (cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/08/1995)

May 8, 1995

May 8, 1995

PACER
24

Hearing Brief by Defendants. (c/s) (cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/08/1995)

May 8, 1995

May 8, 1995

PACER

Motion hearing held before Motz, C.J. re: Plaintiff's (#20) Motion for Show Cause hearing. (Reporter: Simpkins) (jas, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 05/11/1995

May 9, 1995

May 9, 1995

PACER

All Exhibits returned to Counsel per consent of Court. (jas, Deputy Clerk)

May 11, 1995

May 11, 1995

PACER
25

NOTICE of attorney appearance for Vincent Newby by Marianna I. Burt. (cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/12/1995)

May 11, 1995

May 11, 1995

PACER
26

Exhibit list. (cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/12/1995)

May 11, 1995

May 11, 1995

PACER
27

NOTICE of attorney appearance for William Donald Schaefer, (cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/16/1995)

June 15, 1995

June 15, 1995

PACER
28

Report by Defendants on Compliance with capacity limits. (c/s) (cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/21/1995)

Aug. 18, 1995

Aug. 18, 1995

PACER

Hearing held before Motz, CJ on Compliance with Court Decree. Opening statement. (Rep: Cook) (jas, Deputy Clerk)

Aug. 22, 1995

Aug. 22, 1995

PACER
29

Exhibit list of Plaintiffs and Defendants. (jas, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/23/1995)

Aug. 23, 1995

Aug. 23, 1995

PACER
30

ORDER ( signed by Chf Judge J. F. Motz/jt-8/22/95) Returning Exhibits from hearing. (c/m 8/23/95-jt) (jas, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/23/1995)

Aug. 23, 1995

Aug. 23, 1995

PACER
31

Transcript of Proceedings held before the Court on 5/9/95. (FILED SEPARATELY) (cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/11/1995)

Sept. 5, 1995

Sept. 5, 1995

PACER
32

CORRESPONDENCE from Frank M. Dunbaugh RE: capacity limits. (c/s) (cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/13/1995)

Sept. 13, 1995

Sept. 13, 1995

PACER
33

MOTION with memorandum in support by Paris Glendening, et al for Stay of 1993 Revised Consolidated Decree . (c/s) (cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/15/1995)

Sept. 14, 1995

Sept. 14, 1995

PACER
34

MOTION with memorandum in support by Defendants to Redesignate Housing Sections at the Baltimore City Detention Center . (c/s) (cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/21/1995)

Sept. 20, 1995

Sept. 20, 1995

PACER
35

RESPONSE by Jerome Duvall, et al to [33-1] motion by Defendants for Stay. (c/s) (cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/29/1995)

Sept. 27, 1995

Sept. 27, 1995

PACER
36

RESPONSE by Jerome Duvall, et al to [34-1] motion by Defendants to Redesignate Housing Sections. (c/s) (cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/29/1995)

Sept. 27, 1995

Sept. 27, 1995

PACER
37

REPLY by Parris Glendenning, et al to response by Plaintiffs to [33-1] motion by Defendants for Stay of 1993 Revised Consolidated Decree. (c/s) (cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/02/1995)

Sept. 29, 1995

Sept. 29, 1995

PACER
38

Supplemental Renovation update for the Baltimore City Detention Center. (c/s) (cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/02/1995)

Sept. 29, 1995

Sept. 29, 1995

PACER
39

ORDER granting [33-1] motion by Defendants for Stay of 1993 Revised Consolidated Decree, the Stay is effective through October 31, 1995. ( signed by Chf Judge J. F. Motz 10/2/95 ) (c/m 10/2/95-cag) (cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/02/1995)

Sept. 29, 1995

Sept. 29, 1995

PACER
40

ORDER granting [34-1] motion by Defendants to Redesignate Housing Sections at the Baltimore City Detention Center. ( signed by Chf Judge J. F. Motz 10/2/95 ) (c/m 10/2/95-cag) (cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/02/1995)

Oct. 2, 1995

Oct. 2, 1995

PACER
41

MOTION with memorandum in support by Parris Glendening, et al for Extension of Stay of 1993 Revised Consolidated Decree . (c/s) (cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/27/1995)

Oct. 26, 1995

Oct. 26, 1995

PACER
42

RESPONSE by Jerome Duvall, et al to [41-1] motion by Defendants for Extension of Stay of 1993 Revised Consolidated Decree. (c/s) (cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/07/1995)

Nov. 6, 1995

Nov. 6, 1995

PACER
43

REPLY by Defendants to response by Plaintiffs to [41-1] motion by Defendants for Extension of Stay of 1993 Revised Consolidated Decree. (c/s) (cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/14/1995)

Nov. 13, 1995

Nov. 13, 1995

PACER

Status conference held before Motz, CJ. (jas, Deputy Clerk)

Feb. 9, 1996

Feb. 9, 1996

PACER
44

Marginal ORDER dated 3/3/97 granting [44-1] motion for Amy K. Kline to Withdraw as Attorney (Terminated Amy Kl Kline.) ( signed by Chf Judge J. F. Motz ) (c/m 3/3/97) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/03/1997)

March 3, 1997

March 3, 1997

PACER
45

CORRESPONDENCE by plaintiffs to Judge Motz RE: Two Civil Rights Cases, WMN 97-1639 and WMN 97-1857 and their relationship to JFM 94-2541. (c/s Judge Motz, Judge Nickerson, and Staff Attorneys) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/26/1997)

June 23, 1997

June 23, 1997

PACER
46

CORRESPONDENCE by plaintiffs to Judge Nickerson RE: Cases JFM 94-2541, WMN 97-1639, and WMN 97-1857. (c/s to Judge Nickerson, Judge Motz, and Staff Attorneys) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/26/1997)

June 23, 1997

June 23, 1997

PACER
47

MOTION (copy) with memorandum in support to Consolidate Cases 94-2541 and 97-1857 (c/s to Judge Motz, Judge Nickerson and Staff Attorneys) (For Original, See Case No. 97-1857) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/26/1997)

June 23, 1997

June 23, 1997

PACER
48

MOTION with memorandum in support to Compel compliance with the health standards (c/s to Judge Motz, Judge Nickerson and Staff Attorneys) (bma, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/26/1997)

June 23, 1997

June 23, 1997

PACER
49

RESPONSE (copy) by Bishop L. Robinson, LaMont Flanagan, William Jednorski and Ferlene Bailey in opposition to [47-1] motion of Plaintiffs to Consolidate Case No. JFM94-2541 and WMN97-1857, Memorandum and Exhibit No. 1. (c/s) (cmh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/29/1997)

July 28, 1997

July 28, 1997

PACER
50

MOTION by William Donald Schaefer, Blair Lee, Thomas Perkins, Bryson Cook, Edgar M. Boyd, Lawrence Lyde, George G. Musgrove, Uthman Ray Jr., Bishop Winfield Showell, Harriet P. Trader for entry of appearance (c/s) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/30/1997)

July 28, 1997

July 28, 1997

PACER
51

Marginal ORDER dated 7/30/97, granting [50-1] motion for entry of appearance of Glenn T. Marrow as attorney for defendants. ( signed by Chf Judge J. F. Motz ) (c/m 7/31/97) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/31/1997)

July 31, 1997

July 31, 1997

PACER
52

REPLY by Jerome Duvall, Jeffrey Johnson, Rickie Kaintuck, Vernon Lomax, Glen Ford, James Alston, Wyatt Champ, Harvey Jr Brown, Gary L. Morgan, Kelly Robinson, Ricky Daughton, Gregory Macon to response to [47-1] motion to Consolidate Cases 94-2541 and 97-1857 (c/s) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/05/1997)

Aug. 5, 1997

Aug. 5, 1997

PACER
53

MEMORANDUM ( signed by Judge William M. Nickerson 9/25/97 ). (c/m 9/26/97 by Chambers) (cmh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/30/1997)

Sept. 26, 1997

Sept. 26, 1997

PACER
54

ORDER ( signed by Judge William M. Nickerson 9/25/97 ) "construing" Civil Action No. WMN-97-1857, filed pro se, as a contempt motion in Civil Action No. JFM-94-2541; "granting" in part (Paper No. 7) Plaintiffs' Request For Appointment of Counsel in that Attorney Frank M. Dunbaugh, lead counsel in Duvall, be appointed for the limited purpose of pursuing the contempt motion by properly drafting and filing same in Civil Action No. JFM-94-2541; "denying" (Paper No. 6) Plaintiff Blair's Motion to Amend the Complaint; "dismissing" Civil Action No. WMN-97-1857 without prejudice; and "directing" that the Clerk of Court shall close this case. (c/m 9/26/97 by Chambers) (microfilmed 9/30/97) (cmh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/30/1997)

Sept. 26, 1997

Sept. 26, 1997

PACER
55

NOTICE of attorney appearance for William Donald Schaefer, Blair Lee, Thomas Perkins, Bryson Cook, Edgar M. Boyd, Lawrence Lyde, George G. Musgrove, Uthman Ray Jr., Bishop Winfield Showell, Harriet P. Trader by John B. Howard Jr. (c/s) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/10/1997)

Oct. 9, 1997

Oct. 9, 1997

PACER
56

MOTION with memorandum in support by William Donald Schaefer, Blair Lee, Thomas Perkins, Bryson Cook, Edgar M. Boyd, Lawrence Lyde, George G. Musgrove, Uthman Ray Jr., Bishop Winfield Showell, Harriet P. Trader to terminate the decree and exhibits A thru E. (c/s) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/10/1997)

Oct. 9, 1997

Oct. 9, 1997

PACER
57

CORRESPONDENCE from plaintiff RE: case. (c/s) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/15/1997)

Oct. 14, 1997

Oct. 14, 1997

PACER
58

MOTION by William Donald Schaefer and all defendants to modify Consent Decree (c/s) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/20/1997)

Oct. 17, 1997

Oct. 17, 1997

PACER
59

MOTION by Jerome Duvall, et al. to Extend Time to respond to defendants' motion to amend/revise the 1993 consolidated decree . (c/s) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/28/1997)

Oct. 27, 1997

Oct. 27, 1997

PACER
60

ORDER "SUSPENDING" enforcement of the decree until further order of Court as therein set forth; and "GRANTING" [59-1] motion to Extend Time to respond to defendants' motion to amend/revise the 1993 consolidated decree until 12/22/97. ( signed by Chf Judge J. F. Motz 10/31/97; c/m jp ) (mdd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/02/1997)

Oct. 31, 1997

Oct. 31, 1997

PACER
61

Marginal ORDER dated 12/18/97 granting [61-1] motion to Extend Time to file a response is extended to 1/12/98. ( signed by Chf Judge J. F. Motz ) (c/m gl) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/19/1997)

Dec. 19, 1997

Dec. 19, 1997

PACER
62

Marginal ORDER dated 1/12/98 granting [62-1] motion to Extend Time to file a response is extended to 2/4/98. ( signed by Chf Judge J. F. Motz ) (c/m mc) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/13/1998)

Jan. 13, 1998

Jan. 13, 1998

PACER
63

Marginal ORDER dated 2/4/98, granting [63-1] motion to Extend Time to respond to motion is extended to 3/4/98. ( signed by Chf Judge J. F. Motz ) (c/m gl) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/05/1998)

Feb. 4, 1998

Feb. 4, 1998

PACER
64

Marginal ORDER granting [64-1] motion to Extend Time to file a response is extended to 4/15/98. ( signed by Chf Judge J. F. Motz 3/5/98) (c/m gl) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/06/1998)

March 5, 1998

March 5, 1998

PACER
65

Marginal ORDER granting [65-1] motion to Extend Time to file a response is extended to 5/27/98. ( signed by Chf Judge J. F. Motz ) (c/m 4/14/98) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/14/1998)

April 14, 1998

April 14, 1998

PACER
66

Marginal ORDER granting [66-1] motion to Extend Time to respond to motion be extended to 5/27/98 ( signed by Chf Judge J. F. Motz 4/16/98) (c/m gl) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/16/1998)

April 16, 1998

April 16, 1998

PACER
67

MEMORANDUM by Jerome Duvall in opposition to [56-1] motion to terminate the decree by defendant (c/s) (affidavit rec'd 9/17/98) (slf, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 09/17/1998 (Entered: 07/31/1998)

July 30, 1998

July 30, 1998

PACER
68

MOTION by William Donald Schaefer and all defendants to Extend Time to file a reply (c/s) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/17/1998)

Aug. 14, 1998

Aug. 14, 1998

PACER
69

ORDER granting [68-1] motion of defendant to Extend Time to file a reply is extended to 9/21/98. ( signed by Chf Judge J. F. Motz 8/19/98) (c/m 8/19/98) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/19/1998)

Aug. 19, 1998

Aug. 19, 1998

PACER
70

ORDERED, that defendants' motion to modify the consent decree be ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED, subject to being reopened when the briefing on the motion has been completed. ( signed by Chf Judge J. F. Motz 9/1/98) (c/m & microfilmed 9/2/98) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/02/1998)

Sept. 2, 1998

Sept. 2, 1998

PACER
71

ORDER granting [71-1] motion to Extend Time to file their memorandum in reply to plaintiff's memorandum is extended to 10/12/98. ( signed by Chf Judge J. F. Motz 9/23/98) (c/m 9/23/98) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/23/1998)

Sept. 23, 1998

Sept. 23, 1998

PACER
72

MOTION by William Donald Schaefer and all defendants to Extend Time to file a reply (c/s) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/23/1998)

Dec. 23, 1998

Dec. 23, 1998

PACER
73

MEMORANDUM ( signed by Chf Judge J. F. Motz 1/7/99) (c/m 1/7/99) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/07/1999)

Jan. 7, 1999

Jan. 7, 1999

PACER
74

ORDER granting [72-1] motion to Extend Time to file a reply that defendants are given an indefinite extension of time and that the motion to vacate shall be administratively terminated, subject to being reopened upon the request of defendants at any time; and that this case be Administratively Closed, subject to being reopened upon the request of any party at any time. ( signed by Chf Judge J. F. Motz 1/7/99) (c/m skp) (c/m & microfilmed 1/7/99) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/07/1999)

Jan. 7, 1999

Jan. 7, 1999

PACER

Case closed (slf, Deputy Clerk)

Jan. 7, 1999

Jan. 7, 1999

PACER
75

ORDER, that the motion for copywork filed by Keith W. DeBlasio, at the expense of the United States is Denied. ( signed by Chf Judge J. F. Motz 5/11/00) (c/i 5/11/00) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/11/2000)

May 11, 2000

May 11, 2000

PACER
76

MOTION with memorandum in support by Jerome Duvall and all plaintiffs to reopen case to the Court's active docket, and for Temporary Restraining Order, and for Preliminary Injunction and exhibits A-M. (c/s) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/16/2002)

Aug. 16, 2002

Aug. 16, 2002

PACER
77

MOTION with memorandum in support by Jerome Duvall for Leave to File Declaration Under Seal (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/16/2002)

Aug. 16, 2002

Aug. 16, 2002

PACER
78

ORDER granting [77-1] motion of plaintiffs for Leave to File Declaration Under Seal ( signed by Judge Andre M. Davis 8/16/02) (h/d 8/16/02) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/16/2002)

Aug. 16, 2002

Aug. 16, 2002

PACER
79

SEALED - Exhibit list, and Declarations by Jerome Duvall and all plaintiffs. (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/16/2002)

Aug. 16, 2002

Aug. 16, 2002

PACER
80

ORDER granting [76-2] motion of plaintiffs for Temporary Restraining Order. ( signed by Judge Andre M. Davis 8/16/02 ) (h/d 8/16/02) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/16/2002)

Aug. 16, 2002

Aug. 16, 2002

PACER
81

MEMORANDUM by Jerome Duvall in support of this Court's Jurisdiction over Preliminary Injunction Proceedings and Exhibits A-C (c/s) (hml, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/20/2002)

Aug. 19, 2002

Aug. 19, 2002

PACER
82

STATUS REPORT by Harriet P. Trader, Bishop Winfield Showell et al and Attachments (c/s) (jnl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/22/2002)

Aug. 21, 2002

Aug. 21, 2002

PACER

Hearing held in open court before (Motz, J.). (Reporter: Zajac) (mdw, Deputy Clerk)

Aug. 22, 2002

Aug. 22, 2002

PACER
83

ORDER granting [83-1] motion of plaintiffs for Elizabeth R Alexander to Appear Pro Hac Vice (signed by Clerk 8/23/02) (c/m 8/23/02) (Filing Fee Paid) (Receipt # 1187976) (hml, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/23/2002)

Aug. 23, 2002

Aug. 23, 2002

PACER
84

CONSENT ORDER reopening and restoring case to the active docket; DIRECTING defendants, their officers, agents designees with input and review by plaintiffs and their medical experts, shall, within 14 days of entry of this Order, develop and implement a comprehensive protocol for intake screening to identify detainees who are susceptible to heat-related injury in the event of a heat emergency as therein set forth ( signed by Judge J. F. Motz 8/22/02) (c/m 8/22/02) (hml, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/23/2002)

Aug. 23, 2002

Aug. 23, 2002

PACER

Case reopened (slf, Deputy Clerk)

Sept. 1, 2002

Sept. 1, 2002

PACER
85

FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD STATUS REPORT by Harriet P. Trader, Bishop Winfield Showell, Uthman Ray Jr., George G. Musgrove, Lawrence Lyde, Edgar M. Boyd, Bryson Cook, Thomas Perkins, Blair Lee, William Donald Schaefer and attachments and exhibits. (c/s) (file separately) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/23/2002)

Sept. 20, 2002

Sept. 20, 2002

PACER
86

NOTICE of attorney appearance for Harriet P. Trader, Bishop Winfield Showell, Uthman Ray Jr., George G. Musgrove, Lawrence Lyde, Edgar M. Boyd, Bryson Cook, Thomas Perkins, Blair Lee, William Donald Schaefer by Maureen Mullen Dove and Glenn T. Marrow. (c/s) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/25/2002)

Sept. 25, 2002

Sept. 25, 2002

PACER
87

Fifth Weekly Status Report and attachments by William Donald Schaefer and all defendants (c/s) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/01/2002)

Sept. 27, 2002

Sept. 27, 2002

PACER
88

Sixth Weekly STATUS REPORT by William Donald Schaefer (c/s) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/07/2002)

Oct. 4, 2002

Oct. 4, 2002

PACER
89

ORDER Approving [89-1] seventh weekly status report ( signed by Judge J. F. Motz 10/16/02 ) (c/i 10/16/02) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/16/2002)

Oct. 16, 2002

Oct. 16, 2002

PACER
90

CORRESPONDENCE by Harriet P. Trader, Bishop Winfield Showell, Uthman Ray Jr., George G. Musgrove, Lawrence Lyde, Edgar M. Boyd, Bryson Cook, Thomas Perkins, Blair Lee, William Donald Schaefer RE: Report on comprehensive study for long-term proposed solutions environmental conditions at WDC; Secretary Simms is request that the funds for this purpose be included in the State's FY 1004 budget. (c/s) (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/03/2002)

Dec. 2, 2002

Dec. 2, 2002

PACER
91

STATUS REPORT Weekly Status Report-May 9, 2003 by LaMont Flanagan. (Marrow, Glenn) (Entered: 05/09/2003)

May 9, 2003

May 9, 2003

PACER
92

STATUS REPORT by Jerome Duvall. (Dove, Maureen) (Entered: 05/14/2003)

May 14, 2003

May 14, 2003

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Maryland

Case Type(s):

Prison Conditions

Special Collection(s):

Post-PLRA enforceable consent decrees

COVID-19 (novel coronavirus)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Sept. 14, 1994

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Detainees in the Baltimore City Detention Center arguing that the conditions of the jail violate their constitutional rights

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

ACLU National (all projects)

ACLU National Prison Project

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: Unknown

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

City of Baltimore (Baltimore, Baltimore City), City

State of Maryland (Baltimore, Baltimore City), State

Defendant Type(s):

Corrections

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Monetary Relief

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Attorneys fees

Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: $450,000

Order Duration: 1981 - 2024

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief granted

Reporting

Monitor/Master

Monitoring

Required disclosure

Issues

General:

Administrative segregation

Classification / placement

Conditions of confinement

Fire safety

Food service / nutrition / hydration

Law library access

Library (non-law) access

Mail

Phone

Recreation / Exercise

Religious programs / policies

Sanitation / living conditions

Suicide prevention

Visiting

Crowding:

Crowding / caseload

Post-PLRA Population Cap

Discrimination-basis:

Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)

Race discrimination

Sex discrimination

Disability:

disability, unspecified

Medical/Mental Health:

HIV/AIDS

Medical care, general

Medication, administration of

Mental health care, general

Suicide prevention

COVID-19:

COVID reporting ordered

COVID testing ordered/modified

Mitigation Granted

Mitigation Requested

PPE-ordered provided to prisoners for free

Release Denied

Release Requested

Type of Facility:

Government-run