University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Davis v. Canyon County JC-ID-0005
Docket / Court 09-0107 ( D. Idaho )
State/Territory Idaho
Case Type(s) Jail Conditions
Special Collection Post-PLRA enforceable consent decrees
Attorney Organization ACLU Chapters (any)
Case Summary
On January 9, 2009, six inmates of the Canyon County Jail filed a class action lawsuit against the jail under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and 42 U.S.C. §1983. Represented by the ACLU, the plaintiffs filed for declaratory and injunctive relief claiming their confinement was indecent, cruel ... read more >
On January 9, 2009, six inmates of the Canyon County Jail filed a class action lawsuit against the jail under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and 42 U.S.C. §1983. Represented by the ACLU, the plaintiffs filed for declaratory and injunctive relief claiming their confinement was indecent, cruel and, inhumane due to overcrowding, inadequate ventilation, inadequate plumbing, inadequate recreation, inadequate medical care and overall lack of cleanliness.

On August 21, 2009, the court (Judge B. Lynn Winmill) entered an order preliminarily approved the parties' consent decree, conditionally certified the plaintiffs' class, directed notice to the plaintiff's class, and scheduled a final fairness hearing. On November 12, 2009, the court (Judge Winmill) approved the Consent Decree, which requires the jail to adhere to its functional capacity except in rare circumstances, and even then, for periods of no more than 48 hours. The Consent Decree also contains detailed provisions concerning sanitation, temperature control, water temperature, staffing levels, special meals and a prohibition against sex discrimination in the work release programs for female prisoners.

On April 15, 2010, the parties moved to amend the Consent Decree. The amendments included new provisions relating to security checks in the prisons. Specifically, the jail agreed to train its staff to perform security checks, simplify and revamp the procedure for logging security checks, and generate reports for jail administrators showing the number of security checks each day. The court (Judge Winmill) approved the amendment on May 3, 2010.

The parties moved for a second amendment to the Consent Decree on December 28, 2010. The court (Judge Winmill) approved the amendment on January 3, 2011. Under the amendment, work release prisoners are to be released to a specific unit with a designated functional capacity.

The parties moved for a third amendment to the Consent Decree on November 19, 2012. With the exception of attorneys fees, which the parties resolved by separate agreement, the parties agreed that the third amendment resolved all issues in the complaint. The amendment states that the defendant substantially complied with the 2009 Consent Decree, and that the only sections still remaining would be those in the third amendment. The third amendment set forth detailed provisions regarding ventilation, sanitation, plumbing, outdoor recreation, staffing and rule enforcement, and implementation and verification. The court (Judge Winmill) approved the order on January 8, 2013. The Consent Decree was to remain in place for a minimum of one year, after which it was susceptible to termination under the PLRA. No further action has been taken in this case.

Priyah Kaul - 09/30/2014
Kya Henley - 03/24/2014
Denise Heberle


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Female
Constitutional Clause
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Equal Protection
Crowding
Crowding / caseload
Defendant-type
Corrections
Jurisdiction-wide
General
Conditions of confinement
Failure to train
Recreation / Exercise
Sanitation / living conditions
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Totality of conditions
Work release or work assignments
Medical/Mental Health
Medical care, general
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Race
Race, unspecified
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) Canyon County
Plaintiff Description Class of six inmates of Canyon County Jail of Caldwell, Idaho.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU Chapters (any)
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Declaratory Judgment
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year 2013
Case Ongoing Unknown
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies After Decision: Implementation of Judicial Decrees in Correctional Settings
Written: Oct. 01, 1977
By: M. Kay Harris & Dudley P. Spiller (Temple University)
Citation: (1977)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ]

Docket(s)
1:09-cv-00107-BLW (D. Idaho) 01/08/2013
JC-ID-0005-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 01/09/2009
JC-ID-0005-0001.pdf | External Link | Detail
Document Source: ACLU National Prison Project
Inmate Grievance Forms 03/05/2009
JC-ID-0005-0003.pdf | External Link | Detail
Document Source: ACLU National Prison Project
Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 03/11/2009
JC-ID-0005-0006.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction 03/27/2009
JC-ID-0005-0002.pdf | External Link | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order (1) Preliminarily Approving Consent Decree, (2) Conditionally Certifying the Plaintiff Class, (3) Directing Notice to the Plaintiff Class, and (4) Scheduling a Final Fairness Hearing 08/21/2009 (D. Idaho)
JC-ID-0005-0007.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Consent Decree, Order and Judgment 11/12/2009 (D. Idaho)
JC-ID-0005-0004.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Amendment to Consent Decree, Order and Judgment 05/03/2010 (D. Idaho)
JC-ID-0005-0005.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Second Amendment to Consent Decree, Order and Judgment 01/03/2011 (D. Idaho)
JC-ID-0005-0008.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Third Amendment to Consent Decree, Order and Judgment 01/08/2013 (D. Idaho)
JC-ID-0005-0009.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Dale, Candy W. (D. Idaho) [Magistrate]
JC-ID-0005-9000
Winmill, B. Lynn (D. Idaho)
JC-ID-0005-0004 | JC-ID-0005-0005 | JC-ID-0005-0007 | JC-ID-0005-0008 | JC-ID-0005-0009 | JC-ID-0005-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Choudhury, Nusrat Jahan (New York)
JC-ID-0005-9000
Cooper, Lea C. (Idaho)
JC-ID-0005-0001 | JC-ID-0005-0002 | JC-ID-0005-0004 | JC-ID-0005-0005 | JC-ID-0005-0006 | JC-ID-0005-9000
Eppink, Richard Allen (Idaho)
JC-ID-0005-9000
Miller, Dean J. (Idaho)
JC-ID-0005-0001 | JC-ID-0005-0002 | JC-ID-0005-0004 | JC-ID-0005-0006 | JC-ID-0005-9000
Pevar, Stephen L. (Connecticut)
JC-ID-0005-0001 | JC-ID-0005-0002 | JC-ID-0005-0004 | JC-ID-0005-0005 | JC-ID-0005-0006 | JC-ID-0005-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Ericson, Carlton R. (Idaho)
JC-ID-0005-9000
Laugheed, Samuel Bedell (Idaho)
JC-ID-0005-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -