Case: Plyler v. Evatt

3:82-00876 | U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina

Filed Date: 1982

Closed Date: 1999

Clearinghouse coding in progress

Case Summary

On May 5, 1982, inmates of the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDOC) filed a class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the SCDOC in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Columbia Division. The plaintiff, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union National Prison Project and private counsel, asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that conditions within the SCDC were overcrowded and intolerable and in violation of the Eighth…

From 1982 until 1985, extensive negotiations between the parties led to a settlement agreement, which was signed on January 8, 1985. The settlement agreement provided for a maximum number of inmates at each institution, a minimum space requirement for each inmate, increased staffing, modernization and upgrading of medical facilities and staff, expansion of available programs, assurance that facilities would be in compliance with state fire and safety codes, a systemwide classification plan, and that food and sanitation services met the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC), as well as the American Correctional Association, standards.

On February 7, 1985, the District Court (Judge C. Weston Houck) certified a class consisting of adult prisoners committed to the SCDOC and those who would be committed in the future.

On June 6, 1985, having reviewed written objections to the settlement agreement, the Magistrate Court (Judge Charles W. Gambrell) presented a report to the District Court. In November 1985, the District Court (Judge Houck) orally approved the agreement; and, on March 26, 1986, the Court approved the settlement agreement by written consent decree. Plyler v. Leeke, No. 3:82-0876-2, 1986 WL 84459 (D.S.C. Mar. 26, 1986).

On July 21 and 22, 1986, the District Court (Judge Houck) held a hearing at which it denied the defendants' motion to modify the consent decree to allow overcrowding conditions to continue, but declined to order immediate strict compliance with the terms of the consent decree. Judge Houck did order the defendants to reduce and eventually eliminate the number of non-conforming beds. The defendants appealed.

On November 12, 1986, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (per curiam) affirmed in part and dismissed in part the District Court's July 22, 1986, order. Plyler v. Leeke, No. 86-7654, 1986 WL 18030 (4th Cir. Nov. 12, 1986). The Court held that, as SCDC had achieved compliance in the interim, the appeal was moot and the district judge had flexible discretion to issue such orders.

In May 1987, claiming an unanticipated increase in inmate population, SCDC moved for a permanent modification of the consent decree. A mediator and Magistrate Judge (Judge Gambrell) conducted hearings and recommended that temporary double-celling be allowed in 50% of new cells and for two years, respectively. In January 1988, the District Court (Judge Houck) rejected these recommendations, refusing the modification request, and ordered immediate compliance through early-release programs or other appropriate means. The defendants appealed.

On April 27, 1988, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (Judge William W. Wilkins) vacated the District Court's decision and remanded for modification of the consent decree. Plyler v. Evatt (Plyler I), 846 F.2d 208 (4th Cir. 1988). The Court held the District Court's denial of the state's request to modify the consent decree was an abuse of discretion since the state had made good faith efforts to comply with the consent decree but faced an unanticipated increase in the prison population. On October 11, 1988, the Supreme Court denied certiorari. Plyler v. Evatt, 488 U.S. 897 (1988).

The inmates subsequently asked the District Court (Judge Houck) to award attorney's fees, which were granted, and the defendants appealed. On May 7, 1990, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (Judge J. Dickson Phillips) affirmed. Plyler v. Evatt, 902 F.2d 273 (4th Cir. 1990).

In early 1989, the parties filed a set of countering motions respecting the decree's space requirement for women inmates at Womens' Correctional Center (WCC). When the inmates moved for an enforcement order, the state countered with a motion to modify the decree. In May 1989, the District Court (Judge Houck) granted the state temporary relief. And after a hearing in September 1989, on February 15, 1990, Judge Houck denied the state's motion for modification and required the state to bring WCC into full compliance with the consent decree. The defendants appealed.

On January 23, 1991, as amended on February 12, 1991, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (Judge Phillips) vacated and remanded the District Court's February 15, 1990, ruling that refused the defendants' modification request. Plyler v. Evatt (Plyler II), 924 F.2d 1321 (4th Cir. 1991). The Court held that, though the Court could find that a modification of the consent decree could harm prisoners, a determination that the state had acted in good faith was dispositive.

A substantial amount of litigation ensued respecting compliance. The plaintiffs moved on numerous occasions for the defendants to be held in contempt and the defendants moved on numerous occasions for various modifications to the consent decree. Additionally, it appears that the same plaintiff class filed suit in South Carolina State Court on the issue of furlough. (Plyler v. Evatt, No. 23484)

Following the passage of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) in 1996, the defendants moved to terminate the consent decree claiming that the relief was approved in the absence of a finding by the court that that relief was narrowly drawn. On June 4, 1996, the District Court (Judge Houck) granted the defendants motion to terminate the consent decree. The plaintiffs appealed.

On November 14, 1996, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (Judge Wilkins) affirmed the District Court's June 4, 1996, order that terminated the consent decree. Plyler v. Moore, 100 F.3d 365 (4th Cir. 1996). The Court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments that the PLRA provision was unconstitutional for violating the separation of powers doctrine, for denying them equal protection of the laws and for denying them property without due process of law. A petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc were subsequently denied.

	Document
3:82-00876	Docket (PACER) Plyler v. Moore	Aug. 26, 2002	Aug. 26, 2002 Docket
82-06476	Supreme Court Opinion Plyler v. Leeke Supreme Court of the United States	June 20, 1983	June 20, 1983 Order/Opinion 462 U.S. 1146
86-07654	Reported Opinion Plyler v. Leeke U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit	Nov. 12, 1986	Nov. 12, 1986 Order/Opinion 804 F.2d 1251
88-07511	Reported Opinion U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit	April 27, 1988	April 27, 1988 Order/Opinion 846 F.2d 208
88-05359	Memorandum Decision Supreme Court of the United States	Oct. 11, 1988	Oct. 11, 1988 Order/Opinion 488 U.S. 897
88-07763 89-07601	Reported Opinion U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit	May 7, 1990	May 7, 1990 Order/Opinion 902 F.2d 273
90-06789	Reported Opinion U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit	Feb. 12, 1991	Feb. 12, 1991 Order/Opinion 924 F.2d 1321
96-06884	Opinion Plyler v. Moore U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit	Nov. 14, 1996	Nov. 14, 1996 Order/Opinion 100 F.3d 365

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	MEMORANDUM by William D. Leeke, Board Of Corrections in opposition to petition for increse of attys fees. (former empl) (Entered: 03/07/1991)	Feb. 25, 1991	Feb. 25, 1991
2	MOTION by plaintiff Gary Wayne Nelson In Re: Jasper Buchanan to show cause for Disqualification of Atty. Gaston Fairey and assigned monitor J. Shupper. (bwil) (Entered: 07/08/1993)	April 27, 1993	April 27, 1993
4	NOTICE OF APPEAL from CWH Order filed 6/23/93 by plaintiff Gary Wayne Nelson, In. RE: Jasper Buchanan, McCormick Corr. Inst., Rt. 2, Box 100, F-4, McCormick, SC 29899. Fee Status: IFP. (bwil) (Entered: 07/08/1993)	July 6, 1993	July 6, 1993
	Notice of appeal and certified copy of docket to USCA: [4-1] appeal by Gary Wayne Nelson, In Re: Jasper Buchanan. (bwil) (Entered: 07/08/1993)	July 8, 1993	July 8, 1993
5	MOTION by notice only Leonard . Crosby, notice only David E. Harig, notice only David . Ford, notice only Charles . Mabry, notice only Richard R. Valenti, notice only Samuel L. Wodke, notice only James R. Odom, notice only Johnny . Patterson, notice only Terry . Moore, notice only Harold . McKeivey as members of plaintiff class for order to show cause as to proposals to alleviate prison overcrowding in SCDC. (bwil) (Entered: 08/03/1993)	July 26, 1993	July 26, 1993
	NOTICE of Docketing ROA from USCA Re: [4-1] appeal by Gary Wayne Nelson; IN RE: Jasper Buchanan; USCA NUMBER: 93-6751 (Case Manager: Pamela K. Stump) (bwil) (Entered: 09/24/1993)	July 28, 1993	July 28, 1993
6	MOTION by class representative plaintiff Les Williams for a Rule 60 Replacement of Counsel and Arrest of Judgment (several signature pages attached - class action members) (former empl) (Entered: 08/05/1993)	Aug. 4, 1993	Aug. 4, 1993
7	MEMORANDUM by plaintiff Gary Slezak in opposition to defendants' motion to modify certain provisions of the consent decree (this pleading is entitled motion to dismiss defendants' motion; forwarded to 2012 on 8- 25-93 (former empl) (Entered: 08/25/1993)	Aug. 25, 1993	Aug. 25, 1993
8	CLASS MOTION by plaintiff Gary Slezak to enforce/contempt motion of certain provisions of the consent decree (former empl) (Entered: 09/15/1993)	Sept. 13, 1993	Sept. 13, 1993
	Certified and transmitted record on appeal to U.S. Court of Appeals: [4- 1] appeal by Gary Wayne Nelson, IN RE: Jasper Buchanan. Only documents #2,3,4 sent per request on 9/23/93 by 4CCA. (bwil) (Entered: 09/24/1993)	Sept. 24, 1993	Sept. 24, 1993
9	ORDER, directing notice be effected to the parties in this action of the proposed Compromise Agreement to Modify the Decree in the following manner: the Compromise Agreement to Modify the Decree and the Addendum letter of August 18, 1993 shall be prominently posted in all institutions of the South Carolina Dept.of corrections to include all bulletin boards and in each living area of each facility housing members of the plaintiff class; the 'Agreement' and 'addendum letter' shall be published in The State Newspaper at least once each week for four consecutive weeks commencing on or about October 20, 1993; by agreement, the defendants pay the cost of giving notice to the members of the class in the manner prescribed above. A hearing shall be held after the Court reviews all comments submitted in response to the Notice. (signed by Judge C. W. Houck) (former empl) (Entered: 10/07/1993)	Oct. 6, 1993	Oct. 6, 1993
10	NOTICE of COMPROMISE AGREEMENT TO MODIFY THE CONSENT DECREE: (copy of Compromise Agreement attached) this notice is to those who may be members of the plaintiff's class; a copy of the proposed Compromise Agreement (attached to this Notice) can be obtained for the cost of copying and mailing same by written request to the Clerk of Court; members of the class may submit written comments/objections to the Clerk in Columbia; comments submitted by the parties prior to 12/20/93 will be considered by the Court; all comments/objections will be available for review in the Clerk's Office by all counsel who have appeared in this action; if the Court determines the agreement to be an appropriate resolution of the dispute over the classification section of the Decree, it will approve the Consent Decree. (former empl) (Entered: 10/07/1993)	Oct. 6, 1993	Oct. 6, 1993
	Deadline updated; ORAL ARGUMENTS re: population control issue and S.C.D.C.'s motion to withdraw agreement before Chief Judge C. W. Houck set for 10/28/93 at 2:30 p.m. in Florence (former empl) (Entered: 10/26/1993)	Oct. 13, 1993	Oct. 13, 1993
11	MOTION by defendant S.C.D.C. to withdraw agreement to proposed copromise agreement to modify the decree (former empl) (Entered: 10/26/1993)	Oct. 13, 1993	Oct. 13, 1993
12	MEMORANDUM by defendant S.C.D.C. in support of [11-1] motion to withdraw agreement to proposed copromise agreement to modify the decree (former empl) (Entered: 10/26/1993)	Oct. 13, 1993	Oct. 13, 1993
16	REQUEST FOR HEARING in this case by plaintiff class member Les Williams. (This document not docketed as a "motio"; a hearing has been scheduled for 10/28/93). (former empl) (Entered: 10/27/1993)	Oct. 19, 1993	Oct. 19, 1993
13	RESPONSE in opposition by plaintiff class representative Gary Wayne Nelson to defendant S.C.D.C.'s [11-1] motion to withdraw agreement to proposed copromise agreement to modify the decree (former empl) (Entered: 10/26/1993)	Oct. 26, 1993	Oct. 26, 1993
14	MOTION by defendant William D. Leeke, defendant Board Of Corrections to extend time to comply with population levels set forth in the decree (former empl) (Entered: 10/26/1993)	Oct. 26, 1993	Oct. 26, 1993
15	MEMORANDUM by defendant William D. Leeke, defendant Board Of Corrections in support of [14-1] motion to extend time to comply with population levels set forth in the decree (former empl) (Entered: 10/26/1993)	Oct. 26, 1993	Oct. 26, 1993
17	MEMORANDUM of Law by plaintiff class on issue of overcrowding (former empl) (Entered: 11/05/1993)	Oct. 27, 1993	Oct. 27, 1993
18	RESPONSE by objector James A. Clinkscale in opposition to [10-1] notice to modify consent decree. (former empl) (Entered: 12/21/1993)	Oct. 27, 1993	Oct. 27, 1993
	Minute entry: Motion Hearing before Chief Judge C. W. Houck Witnesses/exhibits; [14-1] motion to extend time to comply with population levels set forth in the decree, [11-1] motion to withdraw agreement to proposed compromise agreement to modify the decree granting [14-1] motion to extend time to comply to time already extended; Plaintiff's oral motion to require compliance within 90 days - denied; status conference to be scheduled during the week of Jan. 3, 1994 at which time defendants to give court a status of how stands, what plan has been devised and how plans to implement; defendant S.C.D.C.'s motion to with draw agreement held in abeyance at this time. Counsel to be notified of date and time of status conference. decree (former empl) (Entered: 11/05/1993)	Oct. 28, 1993	Oct. 28, 1993
19	RESPONSE by objector Randy Poindexter in opposition to [10-1] notice to modify consent decree. (former empl) (Entered: 12/21/1993)	Oct. 29, 1993	Oct. 29, 1993
20	RESPONSE by plaintiff Gary Slezak in opposition to [10-1] notice to modify the consent decree. (former empl) (Entered: 12/21/1993)	Nov. 3, 1993	Nov. 3, 1993
21	RESPONSE by objector Tammy R. Warrington in opposition to [10-1] notice to modify the consent decree. (former empl) (Entered: 12/21/1993)	Nov. 4, 1993	Nov. 4, 1993
22	RESPONSE by objector Bryon Keith Lockhart in opposition to [10-1] notice to modify consent decree. (former empl) (Entered: 12/21/1993)	Nov. 4, 1993	Nov. 4, 1993
23	RESPONSE by objector Daniel McNair in opposition to [10-1] notice to modify consent decree. (former empl) (Entered: 12/21/1993)	Nov. 5, 1993	Nov. 5, 1993
24	RESPONSE by objector Katherine Blakely in opposition to [10-1] notice to modify consent decree. (former empl) (Entered: 12/21/1993)	Nov. 5, 1993	Nov. 5, 1993
25	RESPONSE by objector James Russell Odom, objector Douglas A. Mycko in opposition to [10-1] notice to modify consent decree. (former empl) (Entered: 12/21/1993)	Nov. 10, 1993	Nov. 10, 1993
26	RESPONSE by objector Eunice McAllister in opposition to [10-1] notice to modify consent decree. (former empl) (Entered: 12/21/1993)	Nov. 12, 1993	Nov. 12, 1993
27	RESPONSE by objector David M. Garcia in opposition to [10-1] notice to modify consent decree. (former empl) (Entered: 12/21/1993)	Nov. 16, 1993	Nov. 16, 1993
28	RESPONSE by objector William C. McCracken in opposition to [10-1] notice to modify consent decree. (former empl) (Entered: 12/21/1993)	Nov. 16, 1993	Nov. 16, 1993
29	RESPONSE by objector Charles Eugene Carpenter in opposition to [10- 1] notice to modify consent decree. (former empl) (Entered: 12/21/1993)	Nov. 18, 1993	Nov. 18, 1993
30	RESPONSE by objector Robert H. Owens in opposition to [10-1] notice to modify consent decree. (former empl) (Entered: 12/21/1993)	Nov. 22, 1993	Nov. 22, 1993
31	RESPONSE by objector Thomas Mize in opposition to [10-1] notice to modify consent decree. (former empl) (Entered: 12/21/1993)	Nov. 24, 1993	Nov. 24, 1993
33	RESPONSE by objector Frederick Belcher in opposition to [10-1] notice to modify consent decree. (former empl) (Entered: 12/21/1993)	Dec. 13, 1993	Dec. 13, 1993
34	RESPONSE by objector David M. Miller in opposition to [10-1] notice to modify consent decree. (former empl) (Entered: 12/21/1993)	Dec. 14, 1993	Dec. 14, 1993
35	RESPONSE by objector Robert Mason Hendrick in opposition to [10-1] notice to modify consent decree. [Note: the packet from this objector includes several motions.] (former empl) (Entered: 12/21/1993)	Dec. 16, 1993	Dec. 16, 1993
36	RESPONSE by objector Christopher Horlbeck in opposition to [10-1] notice to modify consent decree. (former empl) (Entered: 12/21/1993)	Dec. 17, 1993	Dec. 17, 1993
37	RESPONSE by objector Timothy L. Evans Sr. in opposition to [10-1] notice to modify consent decree. (former empl) (Entered: 12/21/1993)	Dec. 20, 1993	Dec. 20, 1993

Case: Plyler v. Evatt

3:82-00876 | U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina

Case Summary

Related Cases

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Docket

Case Details