University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Tyson v. Grant County Sheriff JC-IN-0022
Docket / Court 1:07-cv-00010-JVB-RBC ( N.D. Ind. )
State/Territory Indiana
Case Type(s) Jail Conditions
Special Collection Post-PLRA Jail and Prison Private Settlement Agreements
Attorney Organization ACLU Chapters (any)
Case Summary
On January 19, 2007, an Indiana county jail inmate, represented by the ACLU, filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana against Grant County, Indiana, over overcrowding in the Grant County Jail. Plaintiff alleged that overcrowding in the jail had ... read more >
On January 19, 2007, an Indiana county jail inmate, represented by the ACLU, filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana against Grant County, Indiana, over overcrowding in the Grant County Jail. Plaintiff alleged that overcrowding in the jail had resulted in a substantial degradation of jail conditions, including frequent fighting among inmates, inadequate food, and lack of access to exercise and recreational facilities. He alleged that the result violated Indiana law, the Fourteenth Amendment (for pretrial detainees), and the Eighth Amendment (for convicted inmates). Proceeding under 42 U.S.C. §1983, 28 U.S.C. §2201, and Indiana state law, the complaint sought class-certification, and declaratory relief, preliminary and injunctive relief requiring defendants to improve living conditions at the Grant County Jail; and costs and attorneys’ fees.

On May 9, 2007, the judge assigned to the case, Judge Rudy Lozano, granted plaintiff's motion for class certification. The class was defined as all current and future prisoners of the facility. Judge Lozano also dismissed plaintiff’s state law claims, but left plaintiff’s constitutional claims open for further litigation.

After slightly under a year, the parties notified the court of their intention to enter into a private settlement agreement on March 20, 2008. The judge to whom the case had been reassigned, Judge Joseph S. Van Bokkelen, approved the settlement agreement on July 30, 2008, after a fairness hearing and notification of the rest of plaintiff’s class.

In the settlement agreement, the parties recognized that the Grant County Jail population had remained at or below its rated capacity for the last 90 days prior to the agreement. Going forwards, defendants agreed that if the population of the Grant County Jail exceeded a set amount for an agreed upon period, then they would take steps to notify interested parties (including plaintiffs’ counsel), and attempt to transfer Grant County inmates to other Indiana jails. Defendants also agreed to take other steps to keep down the Grant County Jail population, including limiting how many prisoners that they would accept from other Indiana jails and considering other locations to house low-security prisoners. Defendants further agreed to make a number of changes to improve living conditions in Grant County Jail, including a guarantee of least two hours of vigorous physical exercise a week, a guarantee of improved bedding in the event that Grant County ever exceeded its rated capacity, and additional corrections officers to better monitor inmates. Defendants also agreed to pay plaintiffs $7,500 in attorneys’ fees, and $2,570.12 in costs.

The settlement agreement also included provisions to monitor and enforce Grant County’s compliance with its terms. Defendants agreed to provide plaintiffs’ counsel with a listing of the daily population in Grant County Jail every 30 days. The parties further agreed to file a joint report with the court every six months on the conditions at Grant County Jail, and on any changes or problems that may have arisen in the intervening period. As per the parties’ request, Judge Von Bokken agreed to keep the case open until December 31, 2012, to allow the parties to seek enforcement or modification of the agreement if needed.

On January 4, 2013, Judge Bokkelen dismissed the case with prejudice. Over the 4 intervening years, the parties had periodically sent joint-status reports to the court, as per the terms of the agreement. Neither party ever moved to enforce or modify the agreement in court.

Anjali Biala - 10/14/2013
Ryan Berry - 08/15/2016


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Due Process
Content of Injunction
Goals and Timekeeping
Monitor/Master
Monitoring
Preliminary relief denied
Recordkeeping
Reporting
Required disclosure
Crowding
Crowding / caseload
Post-PLRA Population Cap
Defendant-type
Corrections
General
Assault/abuse by residents/inmates/students
Conditions of confinement
Grievance Procedures
Recreation / Exercise
Sanitation / living conditions
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Totality of conditions
TTY/Close Captioning/etc.
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Defendant(s) Grant County Commissioners
Grant County Sheriff
Plaintiff Description On January 19, 2007, a detainee of the Grant County Jail brought an action for injunctive relief, which challenged conditions in existence at the Jail as allegedly unconstitutional under both the US Constitution and Indiana Law.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU Chapters (any)
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief Attorneys fees
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 2008 - 2013
Case Closing Year 2013
Case Ongoing No
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)
1:07-cv-00010-JVB-RBC (N.D. Ind.) 01/11/2013
JC-IN-0022-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint 02/16/2006
JC-IN-0022-0001.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 03/28/2007 (N.D. Ind.)
JC-IN-0022-0002.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion and Order 05/09/2007 (2007 WL 1395563) (N.D. Ind.)
JC-IN-0022-0003.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Dismissing Action 01/04/2013 (N.D. Ind.)
JC-IN-0022-0004.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Lozano, Rodolfo (N.D. Ind.)
JC-IN-0022-0002 | JC-IN-0022-0003
Van Bokkelen, Joseph S. (N.D. Ind.)
JC-IN-0022-0004 | JC-IN-0022-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Falk, Kenneth J. (Indiana)
JC-IN-0022-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Marksberry, Gary Jayson (Indiana)
JC-IN-0022-9000
Morrow, Michael R. (Indiana)
JC-IN-0022-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -