Case: Rudisill v. Ryan

4:13-cv-01149 | U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

Filed Date: Sept. 13, 2013

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On September 13, 2013, an African American prisoner in the Arizona State Prison Complex in Tucson filed this lawsuit, pro se, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The plaintiff filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the State of Arizona and the Arizona Department of Corrections. He alleged that the prison assigned him to a particular cell on the basis of his race, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The plai…

On September 13, 2013, an African American prisoner in the Arizona State Prison Complex in Tucson filed this lawsuit, pro se, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The plaintiff filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the State of Arizona and the Arizona Department of Corrections. He alleged that the prison assigned him to a particular cell on the basis of his race, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The plaintiff alleged that the State of Arizona persisted in continuous and systematic racial segregation in the areas of housing and personal care of the prisoners.

 

On October 30, 2013, the judge assigned to this case, Judge Cindy A. Jorgenson, granted a motion by attorneys from the law firm Kendall, Brill, and Kelly to represent the plaintiff. Among those attorneys was Bert Deixler, who had litigated Johnson v. California, in which the Supreme Court held that racial housing assignments in prison were usually unconstitutional.

On February 4, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint against all the defendants adding the governor of Arizona as a defendant.

The governor and the director of the Department of Corrections moved to dismiss the case on March 13, 2014. They argued that the plaintiff improperly sued them based on a letter mailed to him and denial of a grievance appeal, despite admitting that the defendants had no involvement in housing, work, or other assignments in the Tucson prison. On March 17, 2014, the Warden of the Arizona State Prison Complex-Tucson also filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the plaintiff improperly sued based on a letter mailed to him.

The plaintiff withdrew the claims against the Division Director of Offender Operation for the Arizona State Department of Corrections, and the Governor. He also filed to substitute the public officer with the Division Director of Operations.

On May 8, 2014, Judge Jorgenson granted the voluntary dismissal of the claims against the governor, and then denied the governor's motion to dismiss as moot. Judge Jorgenson also granted the substitution of the public officer (the Division Director of Offender Operations).

On June 9, 2014, the Division Director of Offender Operations filed a motion to dismiss. This defendant claimed that he was superfluous to this lawsuit and should be dismissed. But, on July 23, 2014, Judge Jorgenson denied the motion.

As discussed in a joint settlement status report filed November 14, 2014, all parties requested a Magistrate Judge to be appointed to the case in order to act as settlement judge in this matter. On November 24, 2014, their request was granted, and Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle was chosen to oversee settlement negotiations.

On December 22, 2015, the parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement. Under the settlement, the defendants agreed to stop segregating prisoners by race in housing, except for in individual cases where a prisoner had a documented history of racial animosity. The defendants also agreed to curtail racially discriminatory practices in prison employment opportunities. They agreed to narrowly tailor any consideration of race in connection to employment assignments to address a compelling state interest, and to only ever consider race as one factor in a comprehensive and objective assessment of employment assignment or service. The change in policy would apply to Arizona Department of Corrections prison complexes in Douglas, Eyman, Florence, Lewis, Perryville, Phoenix, Safford, Tucson, Winslow, and Yuma. The defendants also agreed to pay $5,000 in monetary damages to the named plaintiff, and to pay $195,000 to the plaintiff's counsel in attorneys’ fees and costs.

The agreement was intended to last until at least 2023, and contained a clause prohibiting either party from moving to terminate the agreement during that period. The plaintiff’s counsel were designated as monitors over the defendants’ compliance with the terms of the agreement, and the defendants agreed to provide plaintiff’s counsel with documents, reports, and access to its facilities for monitoring purposes. In the event of a breach of the agreement, a process is in place to resolve the issue out of court first, after which the plaintiff’s counsel may seek court enforcement. The agreement bars the court from ordering the defendants to construct new prisons or to hire a specific number or type of staff unless the defendants propose to do so as part of a plan to remedy a failure to comply.

On February 8, 2016, Judge Jorgenson issued an order approving the settlement agreement, and agreeing to enforce its terms. There have been no further substantive developments in the case as of May 26, 2020.

Summary Authors

Jenn Nelson (10/10/2015)

Ryan Berry (7/20/2016)

Julia Florey (4/12/2019)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5648385/parties/rudisill-v-ryan/


Judge(s)
Attorney for Plaintiff

Brill, Laura W. (California)

Deixler, Bert H. (California)

Jackson, Randall C. (Texas)

Attorney for Defendant

Carter, Pamela (Indiana)

Gottfried, Michael Evan (Arizona)

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

4:13-cv-01149

Docket

Oct. 18, 2017

Oct. 18, 2017

Docket
1

4:13-cv-01149

Complaint

Sept. 13, 2013

Sept. 13, 2013

Complaint
19

4:13-cv-01149

First Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint

Rudisell v. Ryan

Feb. 4, 2014

Feb. 4, 2014

Complaint
48

4:13-cv-01149

Order

May 8, 2014

May 8, 2014

Order/Opinion
56

4:13-cv-01149

Order

Rudisill v. Ryan et al.

July 23, 2014

July 23, 2014

Order/Opinion
114-1

4:13-cv-01149

Stipulation for Payment of Monetary Damages

Rudisill v. Ryan

Dec. 22, 2015

Dec. 22, 2015

Pleading / Motion / Brief
114

4:13-cv-01149

Stipulation for Order

Rudisill v. Ryan

Dec. 22, 2015

Dec. 22, 2015

Pleading / Motion / Brief
120

4:13-cv-01149

Order [pursuant to stipulation]

Rudisill v. Ryan

Feb. 8, 2016

Feb. 8, 2016

Order/Opinion

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5648385/rudisill-v-ryan/

Last updated March 20, 2024, 3:06 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
133

ORDER denying 126 Timothy Olmos' Motion to Intervene. Defendant's Motion to Strike Non-Party Olmos's Ex Parte Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 132 ) is GRANTED and Olmos' Motion for Sanctions Against Defense Counsel Paul Carter (Doc. 131 ) is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court shall strike the Ex Parte Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 131 ) from the Court docket. Signed by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 3/6/2017.(SIB) (Entered: 03/07/2017)

March 7, 2017

March 7, 2017

RECAP
135

ORDER denying 134 Motion to Strike Defense Counsel's "Motion to Strike Non-Party Olmos's Ex Parte Motion for Sanctions." The Clerk of Court shall correct the docket to reflect the filing of Document 134 was received from prospective intervenor Timothy Paul Olmos. The Clerk of Court shall accept no further filings from Olmos in this case and shall mail a copy of this Order. Signed by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 3/8/2017. (SIB) (Entered: 03/08/2017)

March 8, 2017

March 8, 2017

PACER
136

NOTICE OF ATTORNEY'S CHANGE OF ADDRESS/FIRM NAME by Paul Edward Carter. (Carter, Paul) (Entered: 03/28/2017)

March 28, 2017

March 28, 2017

PACER
137

NOTICE of Attorney Withdrawal of Randall L. Jackson filed by Randall Louis Jackson. (Jackson, Randall) (Entered: 06/09/2017)

June 9, 2017

June 9, 2017

PACER
138

Joint MOTION re: 119 Stipulation (Motion to Modify) by Daniel Lundberg, Carson McWilliams, Charles Ryan, Therese Schroeder. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order (Order (granting Joint Mtn to Modify)))(Carter, Paul) (Entered: 10/16/2017)

Oct. 16, 2017

Oct. 16, 2017

PACER
139

ORDER pursuant to 138 parties' Joint Motion to Modify Amended Stipulation for Order: Paragraph 43 of the Amended Stipulation for Order (Doc. 119 ) is amended as stated in the attached Order. Signed by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 10/17/2017. (See Order for details) (DPS) (Entered: 10/18/2017)

Oct. 18, 2017

Oct. 18, 2017

PACER
140

MOTION: Amicus Curiae Petition by John R. Tacguard. (9 pages) (SIB) (Entered: 03/08/2018)

March 5, 2018

March 5, 2018

PACER
141

ORDER that Tacquard's Amicus Curiae Petition (Doc. 140 ) is DENIED. The Clerk of Court shall not accept any further filings from nonparties in this matter. Signed by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 3/8/2018. (SIB) (Entered: 03/09/2018)

March 9, 2018

March 9, 2018

PACER
142

STRICKEN by doc. 143 . MOTION to Intervene: Complaint filed by Joseph Sena. (9 pages) (SIB) Modified on 4/2/2018 (BAC). (Entered: 03/30/2018)

March 30, 2018

March 30, 2018

PACER
143

ORDER: On 3/30/18, a 142 Motion to Intervene was filed by Joseph Sena. Mr. Sena is not a party in this case and the matter is no longer pending. Pursuant to the Court's 141 Order on 3/9/18, no further filings will be accepted by nonparties. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED Joseph Sena's 141 Motion to Intervene is STRICKEN. Signed by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 4/2/18. (BAC) (Entered: 04/02/2018)

April 2, 2018

April 2, 2018

PACER
144

ORDER: On 9/10/18, Bryan Matthew Gilliam filed a request for a preliminary injunction in this matter. Mr. Gilliam is not a party in this case and the matter is no longer pending. Pursuant to the Court's 141 Order on 3/9/18, no further filings will be accepted by nonparties. IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall not accept or docket Mr. Gilliam's filing and shall return the filing to Mr. Gilliam. Signed by Senior Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 9/10/18.(BAC) (Entered: 09/10/2018)

Sept. 10, 2018

Sept. 10, 2018

PACER
144

ORDER: On 9/10/18, Bryan Matthew Gilliam filed a request for a preliminary injunction in this matter. Mr. Gilliam is not a party in this case and the matter is no longer pending. Pursuant to the Court's 141 Order on 3/9/18, no further filings will be accepted by nonparties. IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall not accept or docket Mr. Gilliam's filing and shall return the filing to Mr. Gilliam. Signed by Senior Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 9/10/18.(BAC) (Entered: 09/10/2018)

Sept. 10, 2018

Sept. 10, 2018

PACER
145

Miscellaneous Relief

Feb. 6, 2024

Feb. 6, 2024

PACER
145

Miscellaneous Relief

Feb. 6, 2024

Feb. 6, 2024

PACER
146

ORDER granting 145 Motion to Terminate Amended Stipulation 119 . Signed by Senior Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 2/12/2024. (MCO)

Feb. 12, 2024

Feb. 12, 2024

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory: Arizona

Case Type(s):

Prison Conditions

Special Collection(s):

Post-PLRA enforceable consent decrees

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Sept. 13, 2013

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

An African-American male housed at the Arizon State Prison Complex in Tucson, Arizona. His housing assignment was made on the basis of his race.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: Yes

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Arizona Department of Corrections, State

Arizona State Prison Complex-Tucson, State

The State of Arizona, State

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Corrections

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Equal Protection

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Monetary Relief

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: $120,000

Order Duration: 2016 - 2023

Content of Injunction:

Discrimination Prohibition

Develop anti-discrimination policy

Implement complaint/dispute resolution process

Reporting

Recordkeeping

Monitoring

Required disclosure

Issues

General:

Classification / placement

Racial segregation

Discrimination-basis:

Race discrimination

Race:

Black

Type of Facility:

Government-run