Case: Cody v. Hillard

4:80-cv-04039 | U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota

Filed Date: March 7, 1980

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On March 7, 1980, inmates of the South Dakota State Penitentiary in Sioux Falls, South Dakota filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the South Dakota Department of Corrections. The plaintiffs, represented by the National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union and by East River Legal Services, asked the court for class certification and declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that their constitutional righ…

On March 7, 1980, inmates of the South Dakota State Penitentiary in Sioux Falls, South Dakota filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the South Dakota Department of Corrections. The plaintiffs, represented by the National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union and by East River Legal Services, asked the court for class certification and declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that their constitutional rights had been violated by the conditions of their confinement. Specifically, they complained of fire hazards, unsanitary food, work safety hazards, poor ventilation, inadequate plumbing, inadequate medical care, inadequate dental care, inadequate psychological care, overcrowding, lack of hot water, lack of heat in winter, inadequate law library, lack of recreation and exercise, and inadequate grievance procedures.

On May 31, 1984, the district court (Judge Donald J. Porter) granted declaratory and injunctive relief to the plaintiffs, ordering the defendants stop double-celling inmates and to file a plan to fix the other problems within 120 days. Cody v. Hilliard, 599 F.Supp. 1025 (D.S.D. 1984). The defendants appealed. On October 28, 1986, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (Judge Gerald W. Heaney) affirmed the district court's decision. Cody v. Hilliard, 799 F.2d 447 (8th Cir. 1986).

The defendants asked the Eighth Circuit for a rehearing en banc, and on October 28, 1986, the Eighth Circuit agreed to rehear the case. Cody v. Hilliard, 804 F.2d 440 (8th Cir. 1986). On October 6, 1987, the en banc Eighth Circuit (Judge Pasco Middleton Bowman II) reversed the district court's order forbidding double-celling, declaring that the practice was not unconstitutional, but affirmed all other orders of the district court. Cody v. Hilliard, 830 F.2d 912 (8th Cir. 1987). The plaintiffs appealed. On February 29, 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal. Cody v. Hilliard, 485 U.S. 906 (1988).

On July 8, 1985, the district court (Judge Porter) issued a consent decree in the case, addressing issues such as prison environmental concerns, fire safety, medical care, psychological care, prisoners' access to courts, and food preparation and sanitation. In the years that followed, the defendants paid attorneys' fees to the plaintiffs on multiple occasions, never disputing the plaintiffs' entitlement to fees.

On April 16, 1996, the defendants asked the district court to terminate the consent decree, arguing that they were in substantial compliance. On March 13, 1997, the district court (Judge Richard H. Battey) dissolved the consent decree and vacated all supplemental orders. The plaintiffs appealed. On March 27, 1998, the Eighth Circuit (Judge John R. Gibson) reversed the decision to dissolve the decree and remanded the case back to the district court, holding that the dissolution of the decree was not supported by sufficient findings or an articulation of basis for the decision. Cody v. Hilliard, 139 F.3d 1197 (8th Cir. 1998).

On February 17, 2000, the district court (Judge Lawrence L. Piersol) approved a private settlement agreement between the parties and dismissed the case without prejudice. Cody v. Hilliard, 88 F.Supp.2d 1049 (D.S.D. 2000). According to Jude Piersol’s opinion, the settlement agreement contained more specific language and guidelines than the 1985 consent decree and established procedures for continued monitoring of prison conditions. The defendants agreed to monthly self-inspections for fire safety and yearly OSHA-type inspections of all shop areas. The settlement agreement provided more relief with regards to the tuberculosis isolation provision, quality control provision, and specific shop provisions.

The plaintiffs asked the district court to award them attorneys' fees. On November 15, 2000, the district court (Judge Piersol) awarded $106,877.74 in attorneys' fees to the plaintiffs. The defendants appealed. On September 11, 2002, the Eighth Circuit (Judge Gibson) affirmed the fee award. Cody v. Hilliard, 304 F.3d 767 (8th Cir. 2002). The case is now closed.

Summary Authors

Kristen Sagar (7/12/2006)

Maurice Youkanna (7/20/2014)

Emily Kempa (3/21/2019)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/9838751/parties/cody-v-charitiescorr-dept/


Judge(s)

Bartels, John Ries (New York)

Battey, Richard Howard (South Dakota)

Bowman, Pasco Middleton II (Missouri)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Alexander, Elizabeth R. (District of Columbia)

Attorney for Defendant

Barnett, Mark W. (South Dakota)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

4:80-cv-04039

Docket (PACER)

Dec. 9, 2002

Dec. 9, 2002

Docket

4:80-cv-04039

Second Amended Complaint

June 1, 1982

June 1, 1982

Complaint

4:80-cv-04039

Memorandum Opinion

May 31, 1984

May 31, 1984

Order/Opinion

599 F.Supp. 1025

84-01697

USCA Opinion

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

July 26, 1984

July 26, 1984

Order/Opinion

1984 U.S.App.LEXIS 20148

4:80-cv-04039

Plaintiffs response to Defendants' Proposed Plan for Compliance

Jan. 24, 1985

Jan. 24, 1985

Pleading / Motion / Brief

4:80-cv-04039

Plaintiffs' Proposed Remedial Order

Jan. 24, 1985

Jan. 24, 1985

Pleading / Motion / Brief

4:80-cv-04039

Proposed Final Order

May 30, 1985

May 30, 1985

Order/Opinion

4:80-cv-04039

Final Order

July 8, 1985

July 8, 1985

Order/Opinion

85-05270

85-05302

Reported Opinion

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Sept. 2, 1986

Sept. 2, 1986

Order/Opinion

799 F.2d 447

85-05270

85-05302

Order

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Oct. 28, 1986

Oct. 28, 1986

Order/Opinion

804 F.2d 440

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/9838751/cody-v-charitiescorr-dept/

Last updated April 18, 2025, 8:11 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
639

Miscellaneous Relief

Aug. 2, 2022

Aug. 2, 2022

PACER
639

Miscellaneous Relief

Aug. 2, 2022

Aug. 2, 2022

PACER
639

Miscellaneous Relief

Aug. 2, 2022

Aug. 2, 2022

PACER
639

Miscellaneous Relief

Aug. 2, 2022

Aug. 2, 2022

PACER
639

Miscellaneous Relief

Aug. 2, 2022

Aug. 2, 2022

PACER
639

Miscellaneous Relief

Aug. 2, 2022

Aug. 2, 2022

PACER
640

Letter Received

Aug. 2, 2022

Aug. 2, 2022

PACER
640

Letter Received

Aug. 2, 2022

Aug. 2, 2022

PACER
640

Letter Received

Aug. 2, 2022

Aug. 2, 2022

PACER
640

Letter Received

Aug. 2, 2022

Aug. 2, 2022

PACER
640

Letter Received

Aug. 2, 2022

Aug. 2, 2022

PACER
640

Letter Received

Aug. 2, 2022

Aug. 2, 2022

PACER
641

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

Aug. 8, 2022

Aug. 8, 2022

PACER
641

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

Aug. 8, 2022

Aug. 8, 2022

PACER
641

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

Aug. 8, 2022

Aug. 8, 2022

PACER
641

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

Aug. 8, 2022

Aug. 8, 2022

PACER
641

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

Aug. 8, 2022

Aug. 8, 2022

PACER
641

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

Aug. 8, 2022

Aug. 8, 2022

PACER
642

Letter Received

Sept. 9, 2022

Sept. 9, 2022

PACER
642

Letter Received

Sept. 9, 2022

Sept. 9, 2022

PACER
642

Letter Received

Sept. 9, 2022

Sept. 9, 2022

PACER
642

Letter Received

Sept. 9, 2022

Sept. 9, 2022

PACER
642

Letter Received

Sept. 9, 2022

Sept. 9, 2022

PACER
642

Letter Received

Sept. 9, 2022

Sept. 9, 2022

PACER
1

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
1

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
1

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
1

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
1

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
1

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
2

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
2

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
2

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
2

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
2

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
2

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
3

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
3

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
3

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
3

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
3

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
3

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
4

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
4

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
4

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
4

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
4

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
4

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
6

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
6

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
6

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
6

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
6

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
6

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
7

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
7

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
7

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
7

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
7

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
7

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
8

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
8

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
8

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
8

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
8

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
8

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
9

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
9

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
9

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
9

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
9

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
9

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
10

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
10

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
10

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
10

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
10

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
10

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
11

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
11

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
11

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
11

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
11

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
11

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
12

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
12

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
12

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
12

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
12

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
12

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
13

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
13

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
13

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
13

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
13

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
13

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
14

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
14

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
14

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER
14

Old FRC Case Documents

July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: South Dakota

Case Type(s):

Prison Conditions

Special Collection(s):

Post-PLRA Jail and Prison Private Settlement Agreements

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: March 7, 1980

Closing Date: 2002

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Prisoners housed within the general population of the South Dakota State Penitentiary at Sioux Falls, South Dakota

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

ACLU National (all projects)

ACLU National Prison Project

Legal Services/Legal Aid

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

State of South Dakota (Sioux Falls), State

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Corrections

Facility Type(s):

Government-run

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

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

Attorneys fees

Declaratory Judgment

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Private Settlement Agreement

Content of Injunction:

Hire

Discrimination Prohibition

Reporting

Monitoring

Amount Defendant Pays: $106,877.74

Order Duration: 1985 - 2002

Issues

General/Misc.:

Conditions of confinement

Fire safety

Food service / nutrition / hydration

Sanitation / living conditions

Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)

Discrimination Basis:

Sex discrimination

Affected Sex/Gender(s):

Female

Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:

Crowding (General)

Crowding: Pre-PLRA Population Cap

Grievance procedures

Law library access

Protective custody

Recreation / Exercise

Medical/Mental Health Care:

Dental care

Medical care, general

Mental health care, general