Case: Morris v. Voinovich

1:93-cv-00436 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio

Filed Date: June 28, 1993

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On June 28, 1993, prisoners at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility filed a Section 1983 class action suit, pro se, in the Southern District of Ohio against officials in Youngstown, Ohio of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. Plaintiffs' claims were related to the treatment of prisoners during the prison riot that occurred in April 1993. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants locked as many as ten inmates in a cell, failed to protect them from violence, did not provide them wit…

On June 28, 1993, prisoners at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility filed a Section 1983 class action suit, pro se, in the Southern District of Ohio against officials in Youngstown, Ohio of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. Plaintiffs' claims were related to the treatment of prisoners during the prison riot that occurred in April 1993. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants locked as many as ten inmates in a cell, failed to protect them from violence, did not provide them with water or working toilets, used excessive force, destroyed personal property, and denied medical care.

In December 1993, Magistrate Judge Robert A. Steinberg appointed several private lawyers and certified the class. By the summer of 1994, counsel, along with their expert Steven Martin, negotiated an end to the post-riot lockdown of general population inmates. By February 1995, counsel negotiated with Defendants for a special Rules Infraction Board to handle the cases of inmates against whom administrative charges for riot-related, violent misconduct were filed.

Following extensive discovery, the parties reached an agreement and signed the Class Action Memorandum of Understanding in January 1997. The settlement included two major parts. First, the settlement established terms to improve the ""quality of life"" including: single-celling maximum security inmates; modifying the inmate classification system; improving racial and cultural relations; securing at least forty hours of out-of-cell time per week; and instituting new state-wide directives on religious practices. Second, the settlement established a $4.1 million fund, from which inmate damage claims, attorneys' fees and expenses would be paid. The case was dismissed conditional on completion of the reforms specified in the settlement agreement. Following a fairness hearing, the District Court (Judge S. Arthur Spiegel) approved the settlement in April 1997.

Michael R. Barrett was named Special Master and has filed several status reports regarding the distribution of the fund. However, extensive litigation continued regarding the distribution of the fund and attorneys' fees.

On December 12, 1999, the District Court (Judge Spiegel) approved a recommendation by the claims administrator that the two class representatives be paid $7,500 apiece.

The stated basis for these awards was that "the class representatives performed important work on behalf of the other members of class and class counsel," serving as a "crucial link for class members and counsel throughout the proceedings" and keeping the "class members generally informed in the progress of the case and relay[ing] information back to class counsel." In a subsequent order, the district court stayed its grant of incentive awards pending appeal.

In 2001, the Sixth Circuit (Judge David A. Nelson) reversed the district court's decision to grant incentive awards to the two named plaintiffs and place all inmates' claim determinations under protective order. In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 2001 WL 1667267 (6th Cir. 2001).

On November 4, 2002, Judge Spiegel entered an order granting class counsel's request for an order increasing the awards to class members pro rata and ordering the settlement master/trustee to distribute $500,000 to be awarded on a pro rata basis on each claimant's previous award totals. In 2004, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's disbursement of unassigned funds to certain prisoner-class members. The court held that the settlement agreement did not authorize the district court to make a pro rata distribution of the remaining settlement funds. Morris v. Voinovich, 2004 WL 1745781 (6th Cir. 2004).

On January 20, 2005, Judge Spiegel approved the joint motion of the parties to distribute the remainder of the settlement fund. The remaining funds are to be used to support two re-entry caseworkers who will work with the class members to help them succeed on release. The court also acknowledged that sufficient effort had been made to attempt to track down all members of the class, and that the funds allocated to the former inmates who could not be traced were returned to the general pool. A second order on the same day awarded attorney’s fees to counsel representing the class. Funds were distributed between 2005 and 2007. 

On December 7, 2020, Judge Spiegel granted the plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order. The order requested that the court continue with protective orders until one year after the last of the following cases and all related appeals are closed. The case is ongoing. 

Summary Authors

Kristen Sagar (8/19/2007)

Anna Dimon (2/2/2015)

Rachel Carpman (11/8/2018)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

1:93-cv-00436

Docket (PACER)

Jan. 12, 2011

Jan. 12, 2011

Docket
129

1:93-cv-00436

Order

In Re: Southern Ohio Correctional Facility

April 24, 1996

April 24, 1996

Order/Opinion

166 F.R.D. 391

187

1:93-cv-00436

Second Amended Class Action Complaint

In re: Southern Ohio Correctional Facility

July 19, 1996

July 19, 1996

Complaint

1993 WL 13547951

269

1:93-cv-00436

Class Action Memorandum of Understanding

In Re: Southern Ohio Correctional Facility

Jan. 22, 1997

Jan. 22, 1997

Pleading / Motion / Brief
332

1:93-cv-00436

Order

In Re: Southern Ohio Correctional Facility

April 22, 1997

April 22, 1997

Order/Opinion

173 F.R.D. 205

377

1:93-cv-00436

Order

In Re: Southern Ohio Correctional Facility

July 24, 1997

July 24, 1997

Order/Opinion

175 F.R.D. 270

97-04491

Unpublished Opinion

In Re: Southern Ohio Correctional Facility

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Sept. 24, 1999

Sept. 24, 1999

Order/Opinion

191 F.3d 453

00-03454

00-03090

00-03455

Reported Opinion

In Re: Southern Ohio Correctional Facility

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Dec. 26, 2001

Dec. 26, 2001

Order/Opinion

24 Fed.Appx. 520

03-03051

Opinion

In Re: Southern Ohio Correctional Facility

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

July 29, 2004

July 29, 2004

Order/Opinion

106 Fed.Appx. 962

1171

1:93-cv-00436

Order

In Re: Southern Ohio Correctional Facility

Jan. 18, 2005

Jan. 18, 2005

Order/Opinion

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/13646992/morris-v-voinovich/

Last updated April 13, 2025, 11:36 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1186

Protective Order

Dec. 7, 2020

Dec. 7, 2020

PACER
1186

Protective Order

Dec. 7, 2020

Dec. 7, 2020

PACER
1186

Protective Order

Dec. 7, 2020

Dec. 7, 2020

PACER
1186

Protective Order

Dec. 7, 2020

Dec. 7, 2020

PACER
1187

Order on Motion for Protective Order

Dec. 7, 2020

Dec. 7, 2020

RECAP
1187

Order on Motion for Protective Order

Dec. 7, 2020

Dec. 7, 2020

RECAP
1187

Order on Motion for Protective Order

Dec. 7, 2020

Dec. 7, 2020

Clearinghouse
1187

Order on Motion for Protective Order

Dec. 7, 2020

Dec. 7, 2020

RECAP
1188

Mail Returned

Dec. 23, 2020

Dec. 23, 2020

PACER
1188

Mail Returned

Dec. 23, 2020

Dec. 23, 2020

PACER
1188

Mail Returned

Dec. 23, 2020

Dec. 23, 2020

PACER
1188

Mail Returned

Dec. 23, 2020

Dec. 23, 2020

PACER
1189

Mail Returned

Dec. 23, 2020

Dec. 23, 2020

PACER
1189

Mail Returned

Dec. 23, 2020

Dec. 23, 2020

PACER
1189

Mail Returned

Dec. 23, 2020

Dec. 23, 2020

PACER
1189

Mail Returned

Dec. 23, 2020

Dec. 23, 2020

PACER
1190

Order

Dec. 30, 2020

Dec. 30, 2020

PACER
1190

Order

Dec. 30, 2020

Dec. 30, 2020

PACER
1190

Order

Dec. 30, 2020

Dec. 30, 2020

PACER
1190

Order

Dec. 30, 2020

Dec. 30, 2020

PACER
1191

Mail Returned

Jan. 5, 2021

Jan. 5, 2021

PACER
1191

Mail Returned

Jan. 5, 2021

Jan. 5, 2021

PACER
1191

Mail Returned

Jan. 5, 2021

Jan. 5, 2021

PACER
1191

Mail Returned

Jan. 5, 2021

Jan. 5, 2021

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Ohio

Case Type(s):

Prison Conditions

Special Collection(s):

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: June 28, 1993

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Prisoners at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Unknown

Filed Pro Se: Yes

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (Lucasville), State

Defendant Type(s):

Corrections

Facility Type(s):

Government-run

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Free Exercise Clause

Equal Protection

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

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

Content of Injunction:

Develop anti-discrimination policy

Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention

Implement complaint/dispute resolution process

Amount Defendant Pays: $4,100,000

Order Duration: 1997 - 2000

Issues

General/Misc.:

Classification / placement

Disciplinary procedures

Food service / nutrition / hydration

Loss or damage to property

Sanitation / living conditions

Search policies

Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)

Totality of conditions

Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:

Administrative segregation

Assault/abuse by non-staff (facilities)

Assault/abuse by staff (facilities)

Crowding (General)

Disciplinary segregation

Recreation / Exercise

Suicide prevention (facilities)

Visiting