Case: Vazquez v. Carver

2:86-03020 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Filed Date: May 21, 1986

Closed Date: 1996

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

In 1986, inmates of Lehigh County Prison (a jail) filed a Section 1983 class action suit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the jail officials. Plaintiffs asserted that the conditions of confinement at the facility constituted a violation of their rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Specifically, plaintiffs complained of: overcrowding; poor sanitation and living conditions; inadequate medical screening and exercise; and improper classification procedures. The cour…

In 1986, inmates of Lehigh County Prison (a jail) filed a Section 1983 class action suit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the jail officials. Plaintiffs asserted that the conditions of confinement at the facility constituted a violation of their rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Specifically, plaintiffs complained of: overcrowding; poor sanitation and living conditions; inadequate medical screening and exercise; and improper classification procedures. The court appointed private counsel and certified the class.

Following 6 days of testimony and argument, the District Court (Judge Huyett) denied plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction, but noted that upon the making of a more complete record the totality of conditions at LCP would be held unconstitutional. Vazquez v. Carver, 1987 WL 14847 (E.D. Pa. July 27, 1987). Following an increase in the population, plaintiffs again sought a preliminary injunction. Judge Huyett granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction requiring defendants to reduce the prison population from 420 to 310 inmates within forty-five days. Vazquez v. Carver, 729 F. Supp. 1063 (E.D. Pa. 1989).

In 1990, the parties negotiated a settlement and the court approved the consent decree. The consent decree set population limits and addressed a number of the issues raised in the complaint. The consent decree established a one-year monitoring period with no provision for extension. In 1996, defendants sought to terminate the consent decree under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The District Court (Judge Cahn) held that although the consent decree had not been satisfied so as to otherwise warrant its termination, termination was warranted under the PLRA. Vazquez v. Carver, 18 F. Supp. 2d 503 (E.D. Pa. 1998). Plaintiffs appealed but the Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion. Vazquez v. Carver, 181 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 1999), cert denied, 530 U.S. 1264 (2000).

The docket for this case is not available on PACER, and therefore our information ends with the most recent decision, dated June 26, 2000.

Summary Authors

Eoghan Keenan (6/10/2005)

People


Judge(s)

Cahn, Edward Norman (Pennsylvania)

Huyett, Daniel Henry III (Pennsylvania)

Attorney for Plaintiff

DAmore, Frank Michael (Pennsylvania)

Dennis, Andre L. (Pennsylvania)

Attorney for Defendant

Caffrey, Thomas M. (Pennsylvania)

Judge(s)

Cahn, Edward Norman (Pennsylvania)

Huyett, Daniel Henry III (Pennsylvania)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:86-03020

Memorandum and Order

July 27, 1987

July 27, 1987

Order/Opinion

1987 WL 1987

87-01517

Memorandum Decision

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

March 1, 1988

March 1, 1988

Order/Opinion

845 F.2d 845

2:86-03020

Memorandum and Order

Oct. 5, 1989

Oct. 5, 1989

Order/Opinion

729 F.Supp. 729

2:86-03020

Memorandum and Order

Dec. 5, 1989

Dec. 5, 1989

Order/Opinion

1989 WL 1989

2:86-03020

Memorandum

June 22, 1998

June 22, 1998

Order/Opinion

18 F.Supp.2d 18

98-01654

Memorandum Decision

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

June 30, 1999

June 30, 1999

Order/Opinion

181 F.3d 181

99-07367

Memorandum Decision

Supreme Court of the United States

June 26, 2000

June 26, 2000

Order/Opinion

530 U.S. 530

Docket

Last updated March 25, 2024, 3:08 a.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: Pennsylvania

Case Type(s):

Jail Conditions

Key Dates

Filing Date: May 21, 1986

Closing Date: 1996

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

inmates of Lehigh County Prison

Public Interest Lawyer: Unknown

Filed Pro Se: Unknown

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Lehigh County Prison (Lehigh), County

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Available Documents:

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 1990 - 1996

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief granted

Issues

General:

Classification / placement

Fire safety

Recreation / Exercise

Sanitation / living conditions

Totality of conditions

Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:

Crowding / caseload

Type of Facility:

Government-run