Filed Date: June 30, 2005
Closed Date: 2010
Clearinghouse coding complete
On August 30, 2002, the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") notified State of Maryland officials of its intent to investigate conditions of confinement at the Cheltenham Youth Facility ("Cheltenham") in Cheltenham, Maryland and the Charles H. Hickey, Jr. School ("Hickey") in Baltimore, Maryland, pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act ("CRIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1997, and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141 ("Section 14141"). Between April 28 and June 12, 2003, the DOJ toured Cheltenham and Hickey with consultants in the fields of juvenile justice, medical care, mental health care, education and sanitation. At the time of the tours and until April 1, 2004, Hickey was operated by a for-profit corporation. On April 9, 2004, the United States issued a findings letter pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997(a)(1), which concluded that certain conditions at Cheltenham and Hickey violated the constitutional and federal statutory rights of juveniles confined there.
The findings led to negotiations between state and federal authorities. The parties reached a settlement agreement made public in late June 2005, filing of the settlement and an associated complaint (to invoke the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland). The settlement describes a number of areas the state obligated itself to improve upon at Cheltenham and Hickey: protection of residents from violence and sexual abuse (via adequate reporting procedures, health care improvements, a use of force policy, staff training, behavior management program implementation, staffing improvements, security system installation (including individual door locks), appropriate and limited use of restraints and seclusion, access to toilets, due process for disciplinary matters, improved intake and classification, and screening of job applicants to ensure employment of persons fit to work with youth), suicide prevention, mental health and medical care, special education, and fire safety.
In the months just following the settlement, the DOJ similarly toured the Baltimore City Juvenile Justice Center ("BCJJC") as part of an investigation, invited by the state, of conditions of confinement at BCJJC. An August 7, 2006, DOJ findings letter also described rights violations, leading to a modification of the original settlement. The May 2007, modification added the BCJJC, so that the state's obligations to improve its juvenile justice housing would extend to all three facilities. The same categories of improvements were set out in the second agreement, with some minor variations between the improvements needed at Cheltenham and Hickey compared with the improvements required at BCJJC. Again, the Department of Justice filed an amended complaint to invoke the court's jurisdiction over the settlement. These complaints relied upon allegations of violation of Section 14141 and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, of non-compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482, and of non-compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. § 794.
The settlements provide processes for compliance reporting and quality assurance, as well as for monitoring of and access to the facilities by the Department of Justice, to enable enforcement proceedings, if necessary. On July 19, 2005, the court (Judge Frederick Motz) placed the case on the court’s inactive docket, with a scheduled dismissal in three years from that date or upon the State’s substantial compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. On June 24, 2008, the parties submitted a Second Amended Settlement Agreement, releasing Cheltenham and Hickey from monitoring and terminating the Agreement with respect to those facilities. On June 26, 2008, the court (Judge Motz) signed a Second Modified Order of Conditional Dismissal, which stated that the interests of the remaining parties would be best served by extending the duration of certain provisions of the Settlement Agreement. In this Order, Judge Motz placed the case on the court’s inactive docket, to be dismissed on June 29, 2009 or earlier if the state reached substantial compliance with the terms of the Second Amended Settlement Agreement.
On June 25, 2009, the parties submitted a Third Amended Settlement Agreement in which the parties agreed that BCJJC improved conditions relating to suicide prevention and special education services sufficiently but still needed monitoring in the area of protection of BCJJC youth from harm by other youth. On June 30, 2009, the court (Judge Motz) approved the Third Amended Settlement and again placed the case on the court’s inactive docket, to be dismissed on June 29, 2011, or earlier if the state reaches substantial compliance with the terms of the Third Amended Settlement Agreement.
On August 19, 2010, the parties determined that the state had fulfilled all of its obligations and Judge Motz ordered that the case be finally dismissed with prejudice.
Summary Authors
Mike Fagan (5/20/2008)
Frances Hollander (2/21/2016)
Acosta, R. Alexander (District of Columbia)
Brown Cutlar, Shanetta Y. (District of Columbia)
Delaney, Joshua (District of Columbia)
DeSheilds Minnis, Tarra (Maryland)
Fontaine, Robert R. (Maryland)
Last updated March 13, 2024, 3:03 a.m.
State / Territory: Maryland
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 30, 2005
Closing Date: 2010
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Attorney General, on behalf of the United States, seeking to enjoin the State of Maryland from depriving youth confined in the Cheltenham Youth Facility in Cheltenham, Maryland.
Plaintiff Type(s):
U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Maryland Department of Juvenile Services, State
Cheltenham Youth Facility, State
Charles H. Hickey, Jr. School, State
Baltimore Juvenile Justice Center, State
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997 et seq.
Indv. w/ Disab. Educ. Act (IDEA), Educ. of All Handcpd. Children Act , 20 U.S.C. § 1400
Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701
Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act, 34 U.S.C. § 12601 (previously 42 U.S.C. § 14141)
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Order Duration: 2005 - 2010
Issues
General/Misc.:
Incident/accident reporting & investigations
Informed consent/involuntary medication
Sanitation / living conditions
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Disability and Disability Rights:
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Assault/abuse by non-staff (facilities)
Assault/abuse by staff (facilities)
Sexual abuse by residents/inmates
Sex w/ staff; sexual harassment by staff
Suicide prevention (facilities)
Medical/Mental Health Care:
Policing: