Case: Harvey v. Schoen

3:72-cv-00073 | U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota

Filed Date: March 8, 1972

Closed Date: 1999

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

In 1972, a class of incarcerated and former inmates at the Minnesota Correctional Facility at Stillwater filed a lawsuit against the Minnesota Department of Corrections. The complaint alleged that disciplinary rules and regulations at the prison violated their rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and federal and state statutes. The plaintiffs were represented by private counsel. The parties entered into an agreement regarding disciplinary policies. Judge Phillip …

In 1972, a class of incarcerated and former inmates at the Minnesota Correctional Facility at Stillwater filed a lawsuit against the Minnesota Department of Corrections. The complaint alleged that disciplinary rules and regulations at the prison violated their rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and federal and state statutes. The plaintiffs were represented by private counsel. The parties entered into an agreement regarding disciplinary policies. Judge Phillip Neville approved the agreement in an order filed on September 10, 1973. Inmate 24394 v. Schoen, 363 F.Supp. 683 (D.Minn.1973).

The Schoen decree outlined the procedures for disciplinary hearings against prisoners at Minnesota Correctional Faculties in Stillwater and St. Cloud. It included procedures for providing prisoners with adequate notice of charges against them, scheduling hearings, continuances, and appeals. There were no successful claims of violations of the Schoen decree.

On August 18, 1998, the defendants moved to terminate the decree pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). Ronald W. Harvey and other plaintiffs, represented by Leslie J. Rosenberg, Minnesota State Public Defender, objected to the motion and a hearing was held on May 21, 1998. On January 28, 1999, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (Magistrate Judge Raymond L. Erickson) granted the motion to terminate the decree. Plaintiffs appealed the Magistrate's decision and it was upheld by Judge James Rosenbaum on April 7, 1999. Harvey v. Schoen, 51 F.Supp.2d 1001 (D.Minn.1999).

The plaintiffs appealed, claiming that the district court erred in denying their request to conduct discovery to show that there was a current violation of the decree. They also argued that the provisions of the PLRA that allowed termination of decrees were a violation of the separation of powers. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (Judge John R. Gibson) affirmed the judgment of the district court and found that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the discovery request. Harvey v. Schoen, 245 F.3d 718 (8th Cir. 2001).

Summary Authors

Angela Heverling (12/1/2005)

People


Judge(s)

Beam, Clarence Arlen (Nebraska)

Erickson, Raymond L. (Minnesota)

Gibson, John R. (Missouri)

McMillian, Theodore (Missouri)

Neville, Philip (Minnesota)

Rosenbaum, James Michael (Minnesota)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Goldberg, Melvin B. (Minnesota)

Rosenberg, Leslie J. (Minnesota)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Hansen, W. Karl (Minnesota)

Kuretsky, William H. (Minnesota)

Judge(s)

Beam, Clarence Arlen (Nebraska)

Erickson, Raymond L. (Minnesota)

Gibson, John R. (Missouri)

McMillian, Theodore (Missouri)

Neville, Philip (Minnesota)

Rosenbaum, James Michael (Minnesota)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Goldberg, Melvin B. (Minnesota)

Rosenberg, Leslie J. (Minnesota)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Hansen, W. Karl (Minnesota)

Kuretsky, William H. (Minnesota)

Spannaus, Warren R. (Minnesota)

Toenges, Jeffrey E. E. (Minnesota)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket (PACER)

May 2, 2001 Docket

Order

Inmate 24394 v. Schoen

363 F.Supp. 683, 1973 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 11978

Sept. 10, 1973 Order/Opinion
225

Order

51 F.Supp.2d 1001, 1999 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 7534

April 7, 1999 Order/Opinion
225

Order

April 7, 1999 Order/Opinion
230

Order

July 16, 1999 Order/Opinion
234

Order

Aug. 17, 1999 Order/Opinion
251

Order

Ridsdale v. Schoen

Dec. 29, 1999 Order/Opinion
257

Order

Sept. 1, 2000 Order/Opinion

Reported Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

245 F.3d 718, 2001 U.S.App.LEXIS 5664

April 6, 2001 Order/Opinion

Resources

Title Description External URL

Docket

Last updated May 12, 2022, 8 p.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

State / Territory: Minnesota

Case Type(s):

Prison Conditions

Key Dates

Filing Date: March 8, 1972

Closing Date: 1999

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

incarcerated and former inmates at the Minnesota Correctional Facility at Stillwater

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Minnesota Correctional Facility at Stillwater (Stillwater), State

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

State law

Constitutional Clause(s):

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Due Process

Availably 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: 1973 - 1999

Issues

General:

Disciplinary procedures

Type of Facility:

Government-run