Case: Howell v. Wilson

2:89-cv-00762 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio

Filed Date: Sept. 14, 1989

Closed Date: 1997

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On September 14, 1989, prisoners at the Ross Correctional Institute in Ohio filed a class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Ohio against prison officials. The plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that defendants interfered with the delivery of plaintiffs' legal mail, and that the law library at Ross Correctional Institute was inadequate, thereby denying the prisoners access …

On September 14, 1989, prisoners at the Ross Correctional Institute in Ohio filed a class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Ohio against prison officials. The plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that defendants interfered with the delivery of plaintiffs' legal mail, and that the law library at Ross Correctional Institute was inadequate, thereby denying the prisoners access to the courts.

The parties filed a consent decree with the court on June 2, 1993. After a fairness hearing, the District Court (Judge John D. Holschuh) approved the consent decree on March 30, 1994. The court provided that the consent decree would have the effect of a court order.

The defendants moved for summary judgment on July 14, 1994. The District Court (Judge Holschuh) granted the defendants' motion on February 1, 1995. On October 18, 1995, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (per curiam) affirmed the judgment of the District Court. Howell v. Wilson, 70 F.3d 115 (6th Cir. 1995).

The defendants moved to vacate the consent decree on March 21, 1997. The District Court (Judge Holschuh) granted the defendants' motion on March 27, 1998. The case is closed.

We have no information about the contents of the consent decree. The only documents we have are the docket and the Sixth Circuit's opinion.

Summary Authors

Kaitlin Corkran (6/12/2006)

People

Judge(s)

Holschuh, John David (Ohio)

Joiner, Charles Wycliffe (Michigan)

Kemp, Terence Peter (Ohio)

Kennedy, Cornelia Groefsema (Michigan)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Antrim, Donald (Ohio)

Attorney for Defendant

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:89-cv-00762

Docket (PACER)

Sept. 13, 1999

Sept. 13, 1999

Docket

95-03241

Order

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Oct. 18, 1995

Oct. 18, 1995

Order/Opinion

70 F.3d 115

Docket

Last updated Dec. 20, 2024, 9:35 a.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: Ohio

Case Type(s):

Prison Conditions

Key Dates

Filing Date: Sept. 14, 1989

Closing Date: 1997

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

prisoners at the Ross Correctional Institute in Ohio

Public Interest Lawyer: Unknown

Filed Pro Se: Unknown

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Ohio Prison Officials, State

Ross Correctional Institution, State

Facility Type(s):

Government-run

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Due Process: Procedural Due Process

Freedom of speech/association

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: 1993 - 1997

Issues

General/Misc.:

Mail

Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:

Law library access