Case: Marion County Jail Inmates v. Cottey

1:72-00424 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana

Filed Date: Sept. 11, 1972

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

Starting in 1972, Marion County Jail in Indiana was the subject of a long-running case to improve its conditions. One of the results of that case was a federal injunction putting a cap on the maximum population size of the jail. We do not have much information on this initial phase of the litigation. What we do know is that after the passage of PLRA, on July 21, 1997, officials at the jail asked the court to lift the population cap so it could put in bunk beds and house an additional one hun…

Starting in 1972, Marion County Jail in Indiana was the subject of a long-running case to improve its conditions. One of the results of that case was a federal injunction putting a cap on the maximum population size of the jail. We do not have much information on this initial phase of the litigation. What we do know is that after the passage of PLRA, on July 21, 1997, officials at the jail asked the court to lift the population cap so it could put in bunk beds and house an additional one hundred and sixty incarcerated people. One month later, on August 19, 1997, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (Judge S. Hugh Dillon) entered a temporary restraining order against any stay or suspension of the existing orders governing the jail, but did not rule on the jail's request. After a year without action or comment from the district court, jail officials sought mandamus to compel a ruling. That action prompted the district court, again without hearing or explanation, to enter an order effectively lifting the cap. One hundred and sixty beds were immediately added to the jail, and inmates appealed the lifting of the population cap.

On May 6, 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Judge Frank Easterbrook), citing a "promptness" requirement in the PLRA, remanded the case to the district court, giving the court thirty days to decide on the plaintiffs' claim that adding the additional beds was a violation of the federal injunction because continued relief to maintain conditions at the Marion County Jail is appropriate under the PLRA. Berwanger v. Cottey, 178 F.3d 834 (7th Cir. 1999). The court also held that the district court erred by letting more than a year pass without action on the motion to terminate prospective relief and then terminating the decree without making any findings.

The docket, last updated on October 27, 2004, does not show any further activity on the case.

Summary Authors

Ben Kelly (3/6/2006)

People


Judge(s)

Barker, Sarah Evans (Indiana)

Dillin, Samuel Hugh (Indiana)

Easterbrook, Frank Hoover (Illinois)

Shields, V. Sue (Indiana)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Falk, Kenneth J. (Indiana)

Herwig, Barbara L. (District of Columbia)

Loeb, Robert Mark (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Bailey, Jon M. (Indiana)

Daniel, Melvin R. (Indiana)

Moloy, James P. (Indiana)

Judge(s)

Barker, Sarah Evans (Indiana)

Dillin, Samuel Hugh (Indiana)

Easterbrook, Frank Hoover (Illinois)

Shields, V. Sue (Indiana)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Falk, Kenneth J. (Indiana)

Herwig, Barbara L. (District of Columbia)

Loeb, Robert Mark (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Bailey, Jon M. (Indiana)

Daniel, Melvin R. (Indiana)

Moloy, James P. (Indiana)

Murray, Kevin Charles (Indiana)

Overholt, Anthony W. (Indiana)

Seigel, Christopher D. (Indiana)

Staples, Ralph Winston Jr. (Indiana)

Swhier, Robert D. (Indiana)

Other Attorney(s)

Broden, Thomas F. Jr. (Indiana)

Faust, Ralph (Missouri)

Lauer, T. E. (Missouri)

Shaffer, Thomas L. (Indiana)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

1:72-00424

Docket

Marion County Jail Inmates v. Anderson

March 14, 2006

March 14, 2006

Docket

1:72-00424

Entry

Aug. 29, 1997

Aug. 29, 1997

Order/Opinion

98-03107

Reported Opinion

Berwanger v. Cottey

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

178 F.3d 834

May 6, 1999

May 6, 1999

Order/Opinion
22

1:72-00424

Order in Aid of Prior Rulings

2002 WL 1042167, 2002 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 6216

April 29, 2002

April 29, 2002

Order/Opinion
126

1:72-00424

Order Denying Request for Court-Supervised Mediation and Directing Defendants to Show Cause Why Contempt Should Not Be Entered Against Them and Sanctions Imposed

Marion County Jail Inmates v. Anderson

2003 WL 22425020, 2003 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 18950

March 19, 2003

March 19, 2003

Order/Opinion
183

1:72-00424

Order Finding Defendant in Contempt and Imposing Sanctions as Well as Coercive Measures to Secure Future Compliance

Marion County Jail Inmates v. Anderson

270 F.Supp.2d 1034

July 10, 2003

July 10, 2003

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

Last updated June 5, 2022, 3:04 a.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: Indiana

Case Type(s):

Jail Conditions

Key Dates

Filing Date: Sept. 11, 1972

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Inmates in the Marion County Jail

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Unknown

Filed Pro Se: Unknown

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Marion County Jail (Marion), County

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

None

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Order Duration: 1999 - 2007

Issues

Crowding:

Crowding / caseload

Pre-PLRA Population Cap

Type of Facility:

Government-run