Roberts v. Mahoning County, 4:03 CV 2329.
| Decision Date | 17 May 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 4:03 CV 2329.,4:03 CV 2329. |
| Citation | 495 F.Supp.2d 719 |
| Parties | Nathaniel ROBERTS, et al. Plaintiffs, v. MAHONING COUNTY, et al., Defendants, v. City of Youngstown Intervenor. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
Paul J. Gains (# 0020323), Prosecuting Attorney, Linette M. Stratford (# 0047223), Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Mahoning County Prosecutors Office, Youngstown, OH.
Iris Torres Guglucello (# 0019416), Law Director, Anthony J. Farris (# 0055695), Deputy Law Director, City of Youngstown, Youngstown, OH.
Robert Armbruster (# 0011623), Armbruster, Kelley, Kot, Honeck & Baker, Akron, OH Thomas Kelley (# 0016820), Armbruster, Kelley, Kot, Honeck & Baker, Akron, OH.
Before BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge, DOWD and POLSTER, District Judges.
CONSENT JUDGMENT ENTRY WITH A STIPULATED POPULATION ORDER
1. This action was commenced on November 14, 2003 by Nathaniel Roberts, James Joseph Mancini, Joshua Baird, Kevin Whitacker, Mike Hamad, Rodney Gray, Leland Scott and Maurice Barnes as named Plaintiffs on behalf of all persons who are or who will be confined at the Mahoning County Justice Center.
2. Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that conditions at the Justice Center violated the United States Constitution, the Ohio Constitution, Statutory Laws of the State of Ohio, and rules and regulations promulgated by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. Plaintiffs sought Declaratory and Injunctive Relief on behalf of the class. This action was brought against the County of Mahoning, acting through the Mahoning County Board of Commissioners and Randall A. Wellington, acting in his official capacity as the duly elected Mahoning County Sheriff. Upon imposition of this Three Judge Court the City of Youngstown intervened. Hereinafter Plaintiffs, Defendants, and Intervenor are collectively referred to as "Parties".
3. The Mahoning County Justice Center consists of two buildings, with close to 800 inmates being housed at the time of trial. The main facility is located at 110 Fifth Avenue, Youngstown, Ohio ("Justice Center"). The second building is called the Minimum Security Mahoning County Jail located at 360 W. Commerce Street, Youngstown, Ohio ("MSJ"). This building housed over 100 inmates and was closed in the spring of 2005. Its reopening is addressed later in this order. For purposes of this order the Justice Center and MSJ will be collectively referred to as "County Jail Facilities."
4. The Plaintiffs in their Complaint moved this Court to certify this as a Class Action pursuant to Civil Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2). The Parties hereto stipulate and agree to the following:
A. This action was certified as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Fed. R. Civ.P on March 5, 2004.
B. That there are questions of law and fact common to the class. The Parties agree that: The named Plaintiffs claim and allege that Defendants have engaged in a common course of conduct toward them, and have instituted a pattern or practice of conduct, or effectuated policy and procedure all of which affect the entire class as a whole. The factual allegations made by the named Plaintiffs, by their very nature, are the type of allegations and claims which are common to other inmates at the Mahoning County Jail, past, present, and/or future. Common questions of law arise from these facts.
C. The claims of the representative Parties are typical of the claims of the class. The claims are typical since they arise from the same event or practice or course of conduct which gives rise to the claims of other class members. The claims of the named representatives are based on the same legal theories as those of the entire class. Due to the fact that there is a commonality and typicality between the claims of the named Plaintiffs and the class, declaratory and injunctive relief is appropriate for the entire class.
D. The representative Parties have fairly and adequately protected the interest of the class. The interests of the named Plaintiffs are not and have never been antagonistic to those of the class. Counsel for the named Plaintiffs, Robert P. Armbruster and Thomas Kelley, have demonstrated their competence to vigorously prosecute the interest of the class and are experienced in the handling of cases of this type.
E. On March 5, 2004, the Court certified the following class:
All persons in the care or custody of the Mahoning County Sheriff and incarcerated on or after November 12, 2003 at the Mahoning County Justice Center, 110 Fifth Avenue, Youngstown, Ohio, ("Justice Center"), and also all persons in the care or custody of the Mahoning County Sheriff and incarcerated on or after November 12, 2003 at the Mahoning County Minimum Security Jail, 360 W. Commerce Street, Youngstown, Ohio ("MSJ").
F. The Plaintiff class has made no claims for damages.
5. The Court has jurisdiction over the Parties and subject matter of this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(3). Venue is properly before this Court.
6. On December 13 through 15, 2004, the above captioned matter was tried to this Court. The named Plaintiffs, both pre-trial detainees and convicted prisoners being held in the custody of the Defendant Sheriff at the Justice Center, alleged the facilities were understaffed and overcrowded, creating unsafe and dangerous conditions for the inmates. Plaintiffs alleged that the lack of staff resulted in (1) the frequent lockdown of inmates for lengthy periods of time, (2) the inability to provide programs and services to the inmates, including but not limited to, recreation, visitation, religion, and inmate counseling programs, and (3) an inability to safely and securely house inmates. The inmates further alleged that the staff was not properly trained. Plaintiffs also alleged that the facilities were poorly maintained, creating unhealthy and dangerous conditions for the inmates. They also asserted that inmates were locked down in cells with toilets that accumulate human waste because they could not be flushed. They alleged that intercoms in cells did not work, prohibiting the inmates from contacting staff during periods of lockdown. Plaintiffs also claimed that the jail does not provide adequate legal resources or a legal access program, thus violating their constitutionally guaranteed right of access to the courts.
7. The Parties agree that the Plaintiffs have exhausted all administrative remedies prior to filing this lawsuit as a proposed class action.
8. As a result of the trial, the Court made extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law based on the testimony of inmates, experts, staff members and administrators who work at the jail. Said findings of fact and conclusions of law are contained in the Memorandum Opinion issued by this Court dated March 10, 2005. (Doc. No. 93), 2005 WL 5569487, 495 F.Supp2d 670. That Memorandum Opinion is adopted as if it was fully rewritten here.
9. The Court, in compliance with 18 U.S.C. § 3626(f)(2)(A), (B), and (C), appointed a Special Master (Doc. No. 108), 2005 WL 5569488, 495 F.Supp.2d 693. Upon the recommendation of the Special Master, the District Court directed the Defendants to create a Criminal Justice Working Group to develop a remedial plan consistent with the United States Supreme Court's decision in Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996). The District Court's Order constituted an order for less intrusive relief in compliance with 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1) of the PLRA (Doc. No. 193), 2006 WL 4606651, 495 F.Supp.2d 694. On May 1, 2006, the Criminal Justice Working Group issued its final report (Doc. No. 191) but was unable to arrive at a solution that would solve the unconstitutional conditions at the jail created by overcrowding.
10. The District Court has previously entered orders in this case that have failed to remedy the deprivation of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights. Defendants have had a reasonable amount of time to comply with the previous court orders. Thus, the prerequisites for convening a three judge court as set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3626(a)(3)(A) have been satisfied.
11. In accordance with the District Court's May 25, 2006 Order (Doc. No. 193), this Three Judge Court was empaneled on June 8, 2006. (Doc. No. 194), 2006 WL 4606652, 495 F.Supp.2d 708.
12. On July 27, 2006, the City of Youngstown moved to intervene (Doc. No. 207) and was granted intervention (Doc. No. 209), 2006 WL 4606650, 495 F.Supp.2d 712. Subsequently this Court set the matter for trial on May 16, 2007 (Doc. No. 224), 2006 WL 4606656, 495 F.Supp.2d 713.
13. The Three Judge Court appointed Special Master Vince Nathan as the Court's expert for this phase of the litigation (Doc. No. 191). Mr. Nathan was charged with the task of collecting data and preparing an expert report of his findings and his opinion with respect to (1) whether crowding at the jail is the cause of constitutional violations, and, if so, (2) whether there is any other viable form of relief, short of a prisoner release order, that could remedy the violations. Pursuant to this Court's Order, Mr. Nathan investigated the issues, and on December 3, 2006, filed a report containing his findings and his conclusions with this Court (Doc. No. 229). The findings and conclusions set forth by this Court's expert demonstrate that the jail is overcrowded resulting in violence to inmates and staff, that crowding is therefore the root cause of a constitutional violation and that there is no other viable remedy to cure the constitutional violation. (Doc. No. 229).
14. As a result of Mr. Nathan's report, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Immediate Injunctive Relief on December 18, 2006 (Doc. No. 232). This Court set the matter for an emergency hearing to be held on December 28, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. (Doc. No. 234). The City of Youngstown filed a Response to Motion for Immediate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coleman v. Schwarzenegger
...that must meet the same set of requirements as any order entered by a court. See18 U.S.C. § 3626(c)(1); Roberts v. Mahoning County, 495 F.Supp.2d 719 (N.D.Ohio 2007); John Boston, The Prison Litigation Reform Act, 67 Brook. L.Rev. 429, 446 n.67 (2001) (collecting orders for overcrowding rel......