933 F.Supp. 1360 (E.D.Mich. 1996), 80-CV-73581, Hadix v. Johnson

Docket Nº:80-CV-73581-DT.
Citation:933 F.Supp. 1360
Party Name:Everett HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Perry M. JOHNSON, et al., Defendants.
Case Date:July 05, 1996
Court:United States District Courts, 6th Circuit, Eastern District of Michigan
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1360

933 F.Supp. 1360 (E.D.Mich. 1996)

Everett HADIX, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.

Perry M. JOHNSON, et al., Defendants.

No. 80-CV-73581-DT.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

July 5, 1996

Michael J. Barnhart, Detroit, MI, for Plaintiffs.

Susan Przekop-Shaw, Asst. Attorney General, Michigan Dept. of Corrections, Lansing, MI, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING A STAY OF THE CONSENT DECREE

FEIKENS, District Judge.

On June 10, 1996, defendants moved for immediate termination of the consent decree in this case pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), Pub.L.No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, amending 18 U.S.C. § 3626.

The complaint originating this action was filed on August 12, 1980; I quote from the Introduction to the Consent Decree ("consent decree" or "decree"). It reads: "[Paragraph] 3. The complaint in this case alleges that the rights of the Plaintiffs secured by the First, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution have been violated." The consent decree goes on to state that the "provisions contained herein are intended by the parties to assure the constitutionality of the conditions under which the prisoners are incarcerated at SPSM-CC (Central Complex of the State Prison of Southern Michigan).

I approved a consent decree that addressed these claims.

The terms of the consent decree involve twelve broad areas: Sanitation, Safety and Health; Health Care; Fire Safety; Overcrowding and Protection from Harm; Volunteers; Access to Courts; Food Service; Management; Operations; Mail; Compliance; and Inspection. The portions of the case involving medical and mental health care and access to the courts were transferred to now-Chief Judge Richard A. Enslen of the Western District of Michigan in 1992 and 1993, respectively. 1

The defendants also moved on June 10, 1996, to terminate the consent decree in that portion of the case before Judge Enslen. In

Page 1361

their brief, and oral argument heard on July 2, 1996, the defendants cited § 3626(e)(2) of the PLRA, which provides that "prospective relief subject to a pending motion [for termination] shall be automatically stayed" beginning on the 30th day after such motion is filed until the date "the court enters a final order ruling on the motion." Thus, all agreements and orders that have been made throughout the eleven...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP