Case: Parton v. White

2:81-cv-00019 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri

Filed Date: May 11, 1981

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On May 11, 1981, prisoners at the Missouri Training Center for Men in Moberly, Missouri, filed a class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against the Missouri Department of Corrections in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The plaintiffs, represented by Gateway Legal Services, alleged that their constitutional rights had been violated by overcrowding at the prison. On November 21, 1983, the parties entered into a consent decree, and on December 30, 1983, the U.S. …

On May 11, 1981, prisoners at the Missouri Training Center for Men in Moberly, Missouri, filed a class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against the Missouri Department of Corrections in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The plaintiffs, represented by Gateway Legal Services, alleged that their constitutional rights had been violated by overcrowding at the prison.

On November 21, 1983, the parties entered into a consent decree, and on December 30, 1983, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (Judge John Regan) approved the consent decree and terminated the case.

On January 25, 1996, the defendants asked the court to modify the consent decree, allowing them to permanently increase the inmate population at the prison. On October 15, 1996, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (Judge David Noce) permanently modified the consent decree, allowing the defendants to increase the prison population to 1800 prisoners. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.

On February 11, 2000, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued a per curiam opinion affirming the district court's decision to modify the consent decree. Parton v. White, 203 F.3d 552 (8th Cir. 2000). The plaintiffs appealed this decision, and on October 30, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari and refused to consider the case. Cooper v. White, 531 U.S. 963 (2000).

Summary Authors

Kristen Sagar (3/31/2006)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/19427288/parties/parton-v-white/


Judge(s)

Arnold, Richard Sheppard (Arkansas)

Beam, Clarence Arlen (Nebraska)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Chackes, Kenneth (Missouri)

Ferry, Michael (Missouri)

Attorney for Defendant

Johnston, David (Missouri)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:81-cv-00019

Docket (PACER)

May 22, 2001

May 22, 2001

Docket

98-01074

Reported Opinion

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Feb. 11, 2000

Feb. 11, 2000

Order/Opinion

203 F.3d 552

00-05824

Memorandum Decision

Cooper v. White

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 30, 2000

Oct. 30, 2000

Order/Opinion

531 U.S. 963

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/19427288/parton-v-white/

Last updated Aug. 17, 2025, 11:07 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
97

Intervene

Feb. 18, 2022

Feb. 18, 2022

PACER
98

Pro Se Motion

March 17, 2022

March 17, 2022

PACER
99

Affidavit

March 21, 2022

March 21, 2022

PACER
100

Leave to

March 23, 2022

March 23, 2022

PACER
101

Pro Se Motion

March 28, 2022

March 28, 2022

PACER
102

Pro Se Motion

April 1, 2022

April 1, 2022

PACER
103

Order (will rule a motion and set/satisfy a schedule)

April 8, 2022

April 8, 2022

PACER
104

Clerk's Reassignment Order (NON-CJRA)

April 8, 2022

April 8, 2022

PACER

Order Receipt

April 8, 2022

April 8, 2022

PACER
105

Mail Returned

April 18, 2022

April 18, 2022

PACER
106

Pro Se Motion

April 20, 2022

April 20, 2022

PACER
107

Request (NOT TO BE USED AS A MOTION)

April 21, 2022

April 21, 2022

PACER
108

Order (will rule a motion and set/satisfy a schedule)

April 27, 2022

April 27, 2022

PACER

Order Receipt

April 27, 2022

April 27, 2022

PACER

Remark

April 27, 2022

April 27, 2022

PACER
109

Appoint Counsel

May 20, 2022

May 20, 2022

PACER
110

Entry of Appearance

June 3, 2022

June 3, 2022

PACER
111

Dismiss Case

June 3, 2022

June 3, 2022

PACER
112

Memorandum in Support of Motion

June 3, 2022

June 3, 2022

PACER
113

Response to Motion

Aug. 1, 2022

Aug. 1, 2022

PACER
114

Reply to Response to Motion

Aug. 2, 2022

Aug. 2, 2022

PACER
115

Entry of Appearance

Aug. 10, 2022

Aug. 10, 2022

PACER
116

Withdraw as Attorney/Firm

Aug. 11, 2022

Aug. 11, 2022

PACER

A Docket Text Order

Aug. 12, 2022

Aug. 12, 2022

PACER

Order Receipt

Aug. 16, 2022

Aug. 16, 2022

PACER
118

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motions of movant Jermaine Cortez Pate to intervene and to reopen the proceedings (Docs. 97 and 98 ) are denied with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions of movant for injunctive relief (Docs. 102 and 106 ) are denied without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions of movant to enforce the consent decree, to modify the consent decree, and for appointment of counsel (Doc. 100 , 101 , 106 , 109 ) are denied as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion of defendants to dismiss (Doc. 111 ) is denied as moot. An appropriate Judgment Order is issued herewith.. Signed by Magistrate Judge David D. Noce on 8/24/22. (KJS)

Aug. 24, 2022

Aug. 24, 2022

RECAP
119

Judgment - (Generic - will NOT rule a motion or term case/party)

Aug. 24, 2022

Aug. 24, 2022

PACER

Order Receipt

Aug. 24, 2022

Aug. 24, 2022

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Missouri

Case Type(s):

Prison Conditions

Key Dates

Filing Date: May 11, 1981

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

prisoners at the Missouri Training Center for Men in Moberly, Missouri

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: Unknown

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Missouri Department of Corrections (Moberly), State

Facility Type(s):

Government-run

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Available 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: 1983 - None

Issues

Affected Sex/Gender(s):

Male

Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:

Crowding (General)

Crowding: Pre-PLRA Population Cap