Case: U.S. v. Michigan

1:84-cv-00063 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan

Filed Date: Jan. 18, 1984

Closed Date: 1999

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On January 18, 1984, the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Department of Justice filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan against the Michigan Department of Corrections and other state officials under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. §1997, alleging unconstitutional prison conditions. The United States sought injunctive relief to remedy the alleged Eighth Amendment violations. Shortly after the lawsuit was fi…

Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, the parties entered into a consent decree, which included a compliance plan dealing with conditions of confinement such as medical and mental health care, fire safety, sanitation, hygiene, crowding and protection from harm. The District Court (Judge Richard Alan Enslen) appointed Special Master F. Warren Benton to oversee implementation of the plan on October 2, 1985. The District Court continued to issue various orders to ensure implementation of the consent decree, and on August 28, 1987, Judge Enslen granted the National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union amicus status. U.S. v. State of Michigan, 116 F.R.D. 655 (W.D.Mich. 1987). On March 3, 1988, Judge Enslen held that a policy permitting use of food loaf as punishment even when the misconduct charge upon which that punishment was based had been dismissed violated due process rights. U.S. v. State of Michigan, 680 F.Supp. 270 (W.D.Mich. 1988). A helpful compilation of the opinions and orders issued in the case through July 1987 was published in U.S. v. State of Michigan, 680 F.Supp. 928 (W.D.Mich. 1988).

On July 2, 1991, after state defendants appealed orders issued by Judge Enslen to implement the consent decree, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Judge Robert B. Krupansky) held that the District Court had abused its discretion. U.S. v. State of Michigan, 940 F.2d 143 (6th Cir. 1991). The Court of Appeals found that Judge Enslen had overly intruded upon Michigan's sovereignty. The Court of Appeals ordered Judge Enslen to not impose upon the state overly intrusive remedies for prison conditions but instead to exercise restraint and reason in performing the District Court's oversight responsibility.

The state defendants appealed a subsequent order by Judge Enslen denying the defendants' motion to dismiss portions of the consent decree. On March 4, 1994, the Court of Appeals (Judge James L. Ryan) upheld Judge Enslen's decision to dismiss only those portions of the consent decree where compliance had been achieved. U.S. v. State of Michigan, 18 F.3d 348 (6th Cir. 1994), cert. denied 513 U.S. 925 (1994). On August 7, 1995, the Court of Appeals (Judge Herbert Theodore Milburn) upheld various orders issued by Judge Enslen regarding the provision of mental health beds but held that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to modify its orders of September 1994 while those orders were on appeal. U.S. v. State of Michigan, 62 F.3d 1418 (6th Cir. 1995) (unpublished disposition).

Following passage of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 18 U.S.C. §3626, the state defendants moved for immediate termination of the consent decree because no findings of liability were made in the case, as it was initially resolved by a consent decree. The state defendants also invoked the PLRA's automatic stay provision, to stay prospective relief. On July 3, 1996, the Court of Appeals ordered that the motion for immediate termination be denied, ruling that the termination motion was more properly addressed to the District Court. U.S. v. State of Michigan, 91 F.3d 145 (6th Cir. 1996) (unpublished table disposition). On the same date as the Court of Appeals decision, July 3, 1996, the District Court (Chief Judge Enslen) ordered that the District Court was incapable of reaching a decision on the motion to terminate before the automatic stay provision would take effect and further held that the automatic stay provision was unconstitutional. U.S. v. State of Michigan, 989 F.Supp. 853 (W.D.Mich. 1996). Thus, Chief Judge Enslen utilized a different PLRA provision, 18 U.S.C. §3626(b)(3), to hold that the automatic stay provision was not to take effect until further evidentiary hearings were conducted regarding the state defendants' motion to terminate.

On September 12, 1996, Chief Judge Enslen granted the plaintiff's discovery motion to conduct further fact-finding and stated that recent hearings revealed ongoing constitutional violations regarding the mental health care of inmates. The state defendants appealed this ruling, and on January 14, 1998, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the District Court's discovery order was not a final order nor was it property appealable as an interlocutory order. U.S. v. State of Michigan, 134 F.3d 745 (6th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). The Court of Appeals (Judge Karen Nelson Moore) then held in a related case on May 20, 1998, that the automatic stay provision of the PLRA was constitutional when construed to permit the District to retain its equitable power to suspend the stay in accordance with general equitable principles. Hadix v. Johnson, 144 F.3d 925 (6th Cir. 1998).


1:84-cv-00063	Docket (PACER)	Nov. 24, 2003	Nov. 24, 2003 Docket
1:84-cv-00063	Complaint	Dec. 15, 1983	Dec. 15, 1983 Complaint
1:84-cv-00063	Consent Decree	June 28, 1984	June 28, 1984 Order/Opinion
1:84-cv-00063	Brief in Support of Appointment of Special Master	July 5, 1985	July 5, 1985 Pleading / Motion / Brief
1:84-cv-00063	Response to Defendants Request for Modification of the State Plan	Oct. 10, 1986	Oct. 10, 1986 Pleading / Motion / Brief
1:84-cv-00063	Compilation of Opinions and Orders	July 27, 1987	July 27, 1987 Order/Opinion 680 F.Supp. 928
1:84-cv-00063	Opinion	Aug. 28, 1987	Aug. 28, 1987 Order/Opinion 116 F.R.D. 655
1:84-cv-00063	Opinion	March 3, 1988	March 3, 1988 Order/Opinion 680 F.Supp. 270
1:84-cv-00063	Order	April 24, 1989	April 24, 1989 Order/Opinion
877 1:84-cv-00063	Order	Nov. 6, 1989	Nov. 6, 1989 Order/Opinion

ECF Number	Date	Description	Link
147	Oct. 2, 1985	ORDER (1 pages) by Judge Richard A. Enslen appointing Special Master F. Warren Benton (cc: all counsel) (rlw) Modified on 04/30/1992 (Entered: 12/11/1989)	RECAP
875	Nov. 3, 1989	OPINION (17 pages) by Judge Richard A. Enslen (cc: all counsel) (dmh) (Entered: 12/14/1989)	RECAP
876	Nov. 3, 1989	ORDER by Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance with the Opinion; defts new Classification Plan by 3/15/90 in accordance with the provisions of Section II of this Opinion the Classification Process shall be fully implemented by defts by 2/1/91; the Classification Process shall comply with the provisions of Section II, paragraph 3 by 9/1/92 (cc: all counsel) (dmh) Modified on 04/30/1992 (Entered: 12/14/1989)	RECAP
877	Nov. 6, 1989	ORDER by Judge Richard A. Enslen in accordance with the Opinion of 11/3/89; the Compliance Ratings of the October 1989 Report of the Independent Expert are adopted by the Court; The Schedule (Items 1-7) for 1990 is adopted; defts' Motion for a Protective Order Terminating or Restricting Discovery by the Knop Amicus is denied; defts' Motion for Modification of the Hospital Site Selection Date is granted; the Knop Amicus' Motion requesting a hearing before the Imposition of Food Loaf is granted in part and denied in part; the Knop Amicus' Motion requesting an Order that defts cease punishing prisoners with Disciplinary write-ups for filing grievances is denied; the Knop Amicus' Motion for an Order requiring defts to cease the practice of denying any prisoner a minimum of three showers per week is granted; the Knop Amicus' Motion requesting that sanitation items related to the presence of vermin be inspected and considered by the Court at both the Fall and Spring Compliance Hearings is denied; defts shall develop a plan by 2/1/90 re the Correctional Population Projected; defts shall develop by 2/1/90 practices and procedures re the Self Mutilation Protection Unit; defts Medical Access Plan pursuant to Section K of the Consent Decree shall be resubmitted by 1/1/90 (cc: all counsel) (dmh) (Entered: 12/14/1989)	Clearinghouse
881	Nov. 6, 1989	ORDER (1 pages) by Judge Richard A. Enslen ; Contempt hearing before Judge Enslsen 8:30 12/14/89 for Jack Bergman, for John Prelesnik, for Theodorre Koehler, for John Jabe, for Dale Foltz, for Robert Brown Jr., for Perry M. Johnson, for Michigan Corr Comm, for Don LeDuc, for Dwayne Waters, for G. Robert Cotton, for Thomas Eardley Jr., for Gwen Andrew, for Michigan Dept. Cor., for James J. Blanchard (cc: all counsel) (rlw) Modified on 02/28/1990 (Entered: 01/19/1990)	RECAP
879	Nov. 8, 1989	Report on Out-of-Cell Activity (STATUS REPORT) by defendant State of Michigan (rlw) (Entered: 01/11/1990)	RECAP
880	Nov. 8, 1989	Report on Fire Marshal Inspection of the Marquette Branch Prison (STATUS REPORT) by defendant State of Michigan (rlw) (Entered: 01/11/1990)	RECAP
882	Nov. 8, 1989	ATTORNEY SUBSTITUTION: terminating Brent E. Simmons and substituting Susan Przekop-Shaw as attorney on behalf of deft State of Michigan (rlw) Modified on 02/26/1990 (Entered: 01/19/1990)	RECAP
884	Nov. 9, 1989	Program Statement for the new correctional mental health facility (STATUS REPORT) by defendant State of Michigan (rlw) Modified on 02/26/1990 (Entered: 01/11/1990)	RECAP
883	Nov. 13, 1989	TRANSCRIPT filed for Compliance Hearing held 11/3/89 before Judge Enslen and reported by Jarratt W. Martin (rlw) Modified on 02/26/1990 (Entered: 01/19/1990)	RECAP
886	Nov. 15, 1989	Internal Food service inspection at the Egeler Correctional Facility (STATUS REPORT) by defendant State of Michigan (rlw) Modified on 02/26/1990 (Entered: 01/11/1990)	RECAP
885	Nov. 17, 1989	MOTION by amicus MI ACLU, amicus Natl Prisn Proj ACLU to exceed page limitation in support of its Motion for Order of Contempt (rlw) Modified on 02/26/1990 (Entered: 12/11/1989)	RECAP
887	Nov. 17, 1989	MEMORANDUM by intervenor-plaintiff in support of Motion for Order of Contempt Regarding Monitoring w/Exhibits A-B w/stamped Proof of Service (rlw) Modified on 02/26/1990 (Entered: 12/11/1989)	RECAP
888	Nov. 22, 1989	LETTER to court from defendant State of Michigan w/attached copy of the latest license issued by the MI Dept. of Public Health for the Comprehensive Care Units (CCU) at Riverside Correctional Facility (rlw) Modified on 02/26/1990 (Entered: 01/11/1990)	RECAP
889	Nov. 22, 1989	ORDER (1 pages) by Magistrate Doyle A. Rowland granting motion to exceed page limitation in support of its Motion for Order of Contempt [881-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) Modified on 02/26/1990 (Entered: 12/11/1989)	RECAP
890	Nov. 22, 1989	Inspection of Food Service at SPSM South Complex to be conducted 11/21/89 (STATUS REPORT) by defendant State of Michigan (rlw) Modified on 02/26/1990 (Entered: 01/11/1990)	RECAP
891	Nov. 22, 1989	MEMORANDUM by amicus in support of Motion for Order of Contempt for Interference with the Monitoring Process w/attachments 1-9 w/Certificate of Service (rlw) Modified on 02/26/1990 (Entered: 12/11/1989)	RECAP
892	Nov. 22, 1989	Report (draft) relating to tool control in industries ( STATUS REPORT) by defendant State of Michigan (rlw) Modified on 02/26/1990 (Entered: 01/11/1990)	RECAP
893	Nov. 22, 1989	MOTION by plaintiff USA to extend time for 10 days to respond to defts' Motion to Reconsider and Alter the Court's Order 11/3/89 and 11/6/89 to and including 12/15/89 w/Memorandum in Support w/Certificate of Service (rlw) Modified on 02/26/1990 (Entered: 12/11/1989)	RECAP
894	Nov. 22, 1989	MIOSHA Inspection for the Marquette Branch Prison (STATUS REPORT) by defendant State of Michigan (rlw) Modified on 02/26/1990 (Entered: 01/11/1990)	RECAP
895	Nov. 27, 1989	MOTION by defendant for reconsideration and to Alter the Court's Orders of ll/3/89 and ll/6/89 w/Brief in Support w/attached Proof of Service (rlw) Modified on 02/26/1990 (Entered: 12/11/1989)	RECAP
896	Nov. 29, 1989	PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants for Monthly Reports (rlw) Modified on 02/26/1990 (Entered: 12/11/1989)	RECAP
897	Dec. 1, 1989	MOTION by defendant to dismiss Order for Show Cause, and for sanctions Against Opposing Parties w/Brief in Support w/Exhibits l-8 (rlw) Modified on 02/28/1990 (Entered: 12/11/1989)	RECAP
898	Dec. 1, 1989	MOTION by defendant to clarify Court Orders on defts' Duty to Report Compliance w/Brief in Support w/Exhibits 1-3 (rlw) Modified on 02/26/1990 (Entered: 12/11/1989)	RECAP
899	Dec. 1, 1989	NOTICE of hearing by defts for motion to clarify Court Orders on defts' Duty to Report Compliance [889-1] at <date to be set by Court> (rlw) Modified on 02/26/1990 (Entered: 12/11/1989)	RECAP
900	Dec. 4, 1989	NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendants from Dist. Court decision of 11/3/89 and 11/6/89 [891-1] w/attached Proof of Service (rlw) Modified on 02/26/1990 (Entered: 12/11/1989)	RECAP
901	Dec. 4, 1989	RESPONSE by amicus to defts' motion for reconsideration and to Alter the Court's Orders of ll/3/89 and ll/6/89 [886-1] w/Certificate of Service (rlw) Modified on 02/26/1990 (Entered: 12/11/1989)	RECAP
902	Dec. 6, 1989	PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants for pldg no 892 (rlw) Modified on 02/27/1990 (Entered: 12/11/1989)	RECAP
903	Dec. 6, 1989	ORDER (1 pages) by Magistrate Doyle A. Rowland granting motion to extend time for 10 days to respond to defts' Motion to Reconsider and Alter the Court's Order 11/3/89 and 11/6/89 to and including 12/15/89 [885-1] (cc: all counsel) (rlw) Modified on 02/27/1990 (Entered: 12/11/1989)	RECAP
904	Dec. 11, 1989	PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Ad Prosequendum by amicus for John Ford, Romando Valeroso, T. Jon Spytma (3 pages) referral to Judge Richard A. Enslen. Writ issued and returned to amicus rep for service (rlw) Modified on 02/27/1990 (Entered: 12/11/1989)	RECAP
905	Dec. 13, 1989	RESPONSE by amicus MI ACLU, amicus Natl Prisn Proj ACLU to motion to dismiss Order for Show Cause [888-1] w/l Attachment (rlw) Modified on 02/27/1990 (Entered: 01/11/1990)	RECAP
906	Dec. 13, 1989	RESPONSE by amicus MI ACLU, amicus Natl Prisn Proj ACLU to motion to clarify Court Orders on defts' Duty to Report Compliance [889-1] w/Certificate of Service (rlw) Modified on 02/27/1990 (Entered: 01/11/1990)	RECAP
907	Dec. 13, 1989	RESPONSE by intervenor-plaintiffs Everett Hadix, Richard Mapes, Patrick C. Sommerville, Roosevelt Hudson Jr, Brent E. Koster, Lee D. McDonald, Darryl Sturges, William Lovett, James Covington, James Haddix to motion to dismiss Order for Show Cause [888-1], motion to clarify Court Orders on defts' Duty to Report Compliance [889-1] w/atttached Proof of Service (rlw) Modified on 02/27/1990 (Entered: 01/11/1990)	RECAP
	Dec. 14, 1989	PROCEEDING before Judge Richard A. Enslen; contempt hearing held; additional briefs due 1/4/90; replies due 1/11/90; hearing continued to 1/16/90 (rlw)
	Dec. 14, 1989	Contempt Hearing
908	Dec. 15, 1989	Semiannual Compliance Report (STATUS REPORT) by defendant State of Michigan (rlw) Modified on 02/27/1990 (Entered: 01/11/1990)	RECAP
909	Dec. 15, 1989	Inspection of Food Service of the South Complex at SPSM (STATUS REPORT) by defendant State of Michigan (rlw) Modified on 02/27/1990 (Entered: 01/11/1990)	RECAP
910	Dec. 15, 1989	Inspection of External Food Service at the Marquette Branch Prison (STATUS REPORT) by defendant State of Michigan (rlw) Modified on 02/27/1990 (Entered: 01/11/1990)	RECAP
911	Dec. 15, 1989	ORDER (4 pages) by Judge Richard A. Enslen to summarize in part and amend in part the verbal order on 12/14/89; that the hearing to show cause on defts' contempt is continued to 1/16/90 @ 9:00 a.m. in Kzoo; defts briefs due by 1/4/90; pltf, amici and defts may file other papers by 1/4/90; replies to be filed by 1/11/90 (cc: all counsel) (rlw) Modified on 02/27/1990 (Entered: 01/12/1990)	RECAP
912	Dec. 20, 1989	ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by by Donald S. McGehee, Assist. Atty Gen. on behalf of defendant State of Michigan w/stamped proof of service (rlw) Modified on 02/27/1990 (Entered: 01/11/1990)	RECAP

Case: U.S. v. Michigan

1:84-cv-00063 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan

Case Summary

Related Cases

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Docket

Docket for: United States v. Michigan, State of

Case Details