Case: Makinson v. Bonneville County

4:97-cv-00190 | U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho

Filed Date: April 30, 1997

Closed Date: 2000

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On April 30, 1997, incarcerated individuals at the Bonneville County Jail, represented by the ACLU, filed a class action lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, challenging conditions of confinement at the jail.Simultaneously with the filing of the complaint, the parties lodged a proposed Consent Decree, Order and Judgment which settled the disputed issues as to inmate confinement, pending the completion of construction of a new Bonneville Coun…

On April 30, 1997, incarcerated individuals at the Bonneville County Jail, represented by the ACLU, filed a class action lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, challenging conditions of confinement at the jail.

Simultaneously with the filing of the complaint, the parties lodged a proposed Consent Decree, Order and Judgment which settled the disputed issues as to inmate confinement, pending the completion of construction of a new Bonneville County Jail.

On May 16, 1997, the District Court (Judge B. Lynn Winmill) approved the settlement and entered the Consent Decree. The Decree called for changes and improvements in the following areas: physical facilities, fire safety, prisoner classification, health care, staffing, sanitation, mail, food service, access to the courts, exercise, visitation, overcrowding, discipline and non-discrimination policy. The Consent Decree was modified on September 17, 1997, when the District Court approved a Supplemental Agreement of the parties, regarding additional jail conditions.

Following the completed construction of the new Bonneville County Jail, the County has transferred all incarcerated individuals and detention operations to the new jail. As all concerns which gave rise to the existing Consent Decree, except medical and health care services, were alleviated, the parties agreed to a Second Supplemental Agreement. On June 14, 1999, the District Court approved the agreement. By terms of the agreement, the Court was to retain jurisdiction over the matter for one year to monitor compliance.

The PACER docket (current as of July 13, 2014) notes no further activity and designates the case as "terminated."

Summary Authors

Dan Dalton (2/8/2007)

Jessica Kincaid (7/13/2014)

People


Judge(s)

Winmill, B. Lynn (Idaho)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Pevar, Stephen L. (Connecticut)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Sasser, David (Idaho)

Wilson, Timothy D. (Idaho)

Judge(s)

Winmill, B. Lynn (Idaho)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Pevar, Stephen L. (Connecticut)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Sasser, David (Idaho)

Wilson, Timothy D. (Idaho)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket (PACER)

March 1, 2006 Docket
3

Consent Decree, Order and Judgment

May 16, 1997 Order/Opinion
7

Second Supplemental Agreement

June 14, 1999 Settlement Agreement

Resources

Title Description External URL

Prisoners' Rights Lawyers' Strategies for Preserving the Role of the Courts

Margo Schlanger

This Article is part of the University of Miami Law Review’s Leading from Below Symposium. It canvasses prisoners’ lawyers’ strategies prompted by the 1996 Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). The … Dec. 1, 2015 http://lawreview.law.miami.edu/prisoners-rights-lawyers-strategies-preserving-role-courts/

Docket

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

ECF Number Description Date Link
1

COMPLAINT (jml) (Entered: 05/01/1997)

April 30, 1997
2

ANSWER by defendants; jury demand (jml) (Entered: 05/01/1997)

April 30, 1997
3

CONSENT DECREE, ORDER AND JUDGMENT by Honorable B. Lynn Winmill terminating case (cc: all counsel) (dkh) (Entered: 06/02/1997)

May 16, 1997
4

STIPULATION to extend time to submit and resolve attorney fees and costs claim (dkh) (Entered: 06/02/1997)

May 30, 1997
5

ORDER by Honorable B. Lynn Winmill granting stipulation to extend time to submit and resolve attorney fees and claim [4-1] ; Case Mgmt ddl set for 6/30/97 (cc: all counsel) (dkh) (Entered: 06/09/1997)

June 6, 1997
6

SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT by plas between Bonneville County regarding additional jail conditions related to, but not included in the consent decree on file herein (dkh) (Entered: 09/18/1997)

Sept. 17, 1997
7

SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT AND ORDER by Honorable B. Lynn Winmill between Bonneville County and pla's regarding consent decree on file herein (cc: all counsel) (dkh) (Entered: 06/16/1999)

June 14, 1999

State / Territory: Idaho

Case Type(s):

Jail Conditions

Special Collection(s):

Post-PLRA enforceable consent decrees

Key Dates

Filing Date: April 30, 1997

Closing Date: 2000

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Inmates at the Boonville County Jail.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

ACLU National (all projects)

ACLU National Prison Project

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Bonneville County Jail (Bonneville), County

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

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: 1997 - 2000

Issues

General:

Access to lawyers or judicial system

Bathing and hygiene

Classification / placement

Conditions of confinement

Disciplinary procedures

Fire safety

Food service / nutrition / hydration

Phone

Recreation / Exercise

Sanitation / living conditions

Totality of conditions

Visiting

Crowding:

Crowding / caseload

Discrimination-basis:

Race discrimination

Medical/Mental Health:

Medical care, general

Medication, administration of

Type of Facility:

Government-run