Case: Lamar v. Coffield

4:72-cv-01393 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas

Filed Date: Oct. 17, 1972

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

Two inmates of the Texas Department of Corrections (TDC) filed a pro se lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on October 17, 1972, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343, alleging race discrimination and unfair segregation practices. On November 6, 1972, eight Spanish-speaking inmates moved to intervene, and the District Court granted their request on January 6, 1973. The United States Attorney General certified the case to be of general public impo…

Two inmates of the Texas Department of Corrections (TDC) filed a pro se lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on October 17, 1972, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343, alleging race discrimination and unfair segregation practices. On November 6, 1972, eight Spanish-speaking inmates moved to intervene, and the District Court granted their request on January 6, 1973. The United States Attorney General certified the case to be of general public importance pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000h-2 (part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), and the United States' motion to intervene was granted on July 6, 1973. Thereafter, eight other inmates' requests to intervene were granted.

The Court certified the case as a class action, consisting of all past, present, and future inmates of TDC. The plaintiffs alleged racial or ethnic discrimination, particularly in assignment to various prison units, living quarters, work squads; in disciplinary procedures; in selection for educational programs; in providing medical care, protection from harm in the prison units, recreational facilities, dining, showering, and other group activities; and in the use of racial and ethnic slurs by the staff. The United States, as intervenor, sought to enjoin TDC from assigning inmates to cells based on race, color, religion, or national origin; from segregating the prison facilities; from failing to implement a standard of prisoner classification not related to race; and from failing to correct and erase the effects of past discriminatory practices.

The parties entered into a consent decree, which the court approved on April 12, 1977. The decree stated that the TDC should implement an affirmative action plan, designed to prevent the use of ethnicity and race for inmate housing assignments, job assignments, discipline, education, medical care, recreational activities. Additionally, the TDC was to take measures to assure its staff did not use racial epithets and did not punish inmates for speaking Spanish.

Over the years, a series of hearings were held about compliance and modification. The court discontinued the state's duty to make routine reports of in-cell integration. In 1996, inmates who did not wish to share cells with inmates of another race sought to intervene in the case and modify the decree. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Judge Lynn Nettleton Hughes) declined to allow these plaintiffs to intervene. Lamar v. Coffield, 951 F. Supp. 629 (S.D.Tex. 1996).

On April 8, 2008 the consent decree was terminated. An emergency motion to implement a filed permanent injunction/temporary restraining order was later denied.

Summary Authors

David Terry (4/10/2006)

Tania Morris Diaz (10/31/2014)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/10167495/parties/lamar-v-coffield/


Judge(s)

Benavides, Fortunato Pedro (Texas)

Bue, Carl Olaf Jr. (Texas)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Birnberg, Gerald M. (Texas)

Attorney for Defendant
Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

Bowman, Robert C. (District of Columbia)

Caldwell, Garnett Ernest (Texas)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

4:72-cv-01393

Docket [PACER]

Jan. 24, 2005

Jan. 24, 2005

Docket

4:72-cv-01393

Docket

Aug. 27, 2008

Aug. 27, 2008

Docket

72-00089

Memorandum & Order

May 5, 1972

May 5, 1972

Order/Opinion

353 F.Supp. 353

4:72-cv-01393

Consent Decree

April 12, 1977

April 12, 1977

Order/Opinion
898

4:72-cv-01393

Opinion

Jan. 16, 1996

Jan. 16, 1996

Order/Opinion

951 F.Supp. 951

4:72-cv-01393

96-20333

Opinion [Dismissing Appeal]

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Aug. 12, 1997

Aug. 12, 1997

Order/Opinion

124 F.3d 124

99-20467

USCA Opinion

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

June 2, 2000

June 2, 2000

Order/Opinion

218 F.3d 218

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/10167495/lamar-v-coffield/

Last updated Feb. 22, 2024, 3:23 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1094

Letter

July 10, 2020

July 10, 2020

PACER
1094

Letter

July 10, 2020

July 10, 2020

PACER
1094

Letter

July 10, 2020

July 10, 2020

PACER
1094

Letter

July 10, 2020

July 10, 2020

PACER
1094

Letter

July 10, 2020

July 10, 2020

PACER
1094

Letter

July 10, 2020

July 10, 2020

PACER
1094

Letter

July 10, 2020

July 10, 2020

PACER
1094

Letter

July 10, 2020

July 10, 2020

PACER
1094

Letter

July 10, 2020

July 10, 2020

PACER
1094

Letter

July 10, 2020

July 10, 2020

PACER
1094

Letter

July 10, 2020

July 10, 2020

PACER
1094

Letter

July 10, 2020

July 10, 2020

PACER
1094

Letter

July 10, 2020

July 10, 2020

PACER
1094

Letter

July 10, 2020

July 10, 2020

PACER
1094

Letter

July 10, 2020

July 10, 2020

PACER
1094

Letter

July 10, 2020

July 10, 2020

PACER

Remark (*PUBLIC ENTRY)

July 18, 2020

July 18, 2020

PACER

Remark (*PUBLIC ENTRY)

July 18, 2020

July 18, 2020

PACER

Remark (*PUBLIC ENTRY)

July 18, 2020

July 18, 2020

PACER

Remark (*PUBLIC ENTRY)

July 18, 2020

July 18, 2020

PACER

Remark (*PUBLIC ENTRY)

July 18, 2020

July 18, 2020

PACER

Remark (*PUBLIC ENTRY)

July 18, 2020

July 18, 2020

PACER

Remark (*PUBLIC ENTRY)

July 18, 2020

July 18, 2020

PACER

Remark (*PUBLIC ENTRY)

July 18, 2020

July 18, 2020

PACER

Remark (*PUBLIC ENTRY)

July 18, 2020

July 18, 2020

PACER

Remark (*PUBLIC ENTRY)

July 18, 2020

July 18, 2020

PACER

Remark (*PUBLIC ENTRY)

July 18, 2020

July 18, 2020

PACER

Remark (*PUBLIC ENTRY)

July 18, 2020

July 18, 2020

PACER

Remark (*PUBLIC ENTRY)

July 18, 2020

July 18, 2020

PACER

Remark (*PUBLIC ENTRY)

July 18, 2020

July 18, 2020

PACER

Remark (*PUBLIC ENTRY)

July 18, 2020

July 18, 2020

PACER

Remark (*PUBLIC ENTRY)

July 18, 2020

July 18, 2020

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Texas

Case Type(s):

Prison Conditions

Key Dates

Filing Date: Oct. 17, 1972

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

all past, present, and future inmates of the Texas Department of Corrections

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Unknown

Filed Pro Se: Yes

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Texas Department of Corrections, State

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Equal Protection

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

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: 1977 - 1996

Issues

General:

Disciplinary procedures

Education

Food service / nutrition / hydration

Language access/needs

Racial segregation

Recreation / Exercise

Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:

Administrative segregation

Disciplinary segregation

Discrimination-basis:

Race discrimination

Medical/Mental Health:

Medical care, general

Type of Facility:

Government-run