University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Rudisill v. Ryan PC-AZ-0020
Docket / Court 4:13-cv-01149 ( D. Ariz. )
State/Territory Arizona
Case Type(s) Prison Conditions
Special Collection Post-PLRA enforceable consent decrees
Case Summary
On September 13, 2013, an African American prisoner in the Arizona State Prison Complex in Tucson filed this lawsuit, pro se, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (Tucson Division). The plaintiff brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the State of Arizona and the Arizona ... read more >
On September 13, 2013, an African American prisoner in the Arizona State Prison Complex in Tucson filed this lawsuit, pro se, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (Tucson Division). The plaintiff brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the State of Arizona and the Arizona Department of Corrections. He alleged that the prison assigned him to a particular cell on the basis of his race, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The plaintiff alleged that the State of Arizona persisted in continuous and systematic racial segregation in the areas of housing and personal care of the prisoners.

On October 30, 2013, the judge assigned to this case, Judge Cindy A. Jorgenson, granted a motion by attorneys from the law firm Kendall, Brill, and Kelly to represent plaintiff. Among those attorneys was Bert Deixler, who had litigated Johnson v. California, in which the Supreme Court held that racial housing assignments in prison were usually unconstitutional. Johnson is PC-CA-0041 in this Clearinghouse.

On February 4, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint against all the defendants adding the governor of Arizona as a defendant.

The governor and the director of the department of corrections moved to dismiss the case on March 13, 2014. They argued that the plaintiff improperly sued them based on a letter mailed to him and denial of a grievance appeal, despite admitting that the defendants had no involvement in housing, work, or other assignments in the Tucson prison. On March 17, 2014, the Warden of the Arizona State Prison Complex-Tucson also filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the plaintiff improperly sued based on a letter mailed to him.

The plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the claims against the Division Director of Offender Operation for the Arizona State Department of Corrections on April 3, 2014, and also filed to substitute the public officer with the Division Director of Operations. The plaintiff also filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the claims against the governor.

On May 8, 2014, Judge Jorgenson granted the voluntary dismissal of the claims against the governor, and then denied the governor's motion to dismiss as moot. Judge Jorgenson also granted the substitution of the public officer (the Division Director of Offender Operations).

On June 9, 2014, the Division Director of Offender Operations filed a motion to dismiss. The defendant claims that he is superfluous to this lawsuit and should be dismissed. But, on July 23, 2014, Judge Jorgenson denied the motion to dismiss.

As discussed in a joint settlement status report filed November 14, 2014, all parties requested a Magistrate Judge to be appointed to the case in order to act as settlement judge in this matter. On November 24, 2014, their request was granted, and Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle was chosen to oversee settlement negotiations.

On December 22, 2015, the parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement. Under the settlement agreement, defendants agreed to stop segregating prisoners by race in housing, except for in individual cases where a prisoner has a documented history of racial animosity. Defendants also agreed to curtail racially discriminatory practices in prison employment opportunities. They agreed to narrowly tailor any consideration of race in connection to employment assignments to address a compelling state interest, and to only ever consider race as one factor in a comprehensive and objective assessment of employment assignment or service. The change in policy would apply to Arizona Department of Corrections prison complexes in Douglas, Eyman, Florence, Lewis, Perryville, Phoenix, Safford, Tucson, Winslow, and Yuma. Defendants also agreed to pay $5,000 in monetary damages to the named plaintiff, and to pay $195,000 to plaintiff's counsel in attorneys’ fees and costs.

The agreement is intended to last until at least 2023, and contains a clause prohibiting either party from moving to terminate the agreement during that period. Plaintiff’s counsel are to act as monitors over defendants’ compliance with the terms of the agreement, and defendants are to provide plaintiff’s counsel documents, reports, and access to defendants’ facilities for monitoring purposes. In the event of a breach or perceived breach of the agreement, there's a process for trying to resolve the issue out of court, and then plaintiff’s counsel may seek court enforcement. The agreement bars the court from ordering defendants to construct new prisons or to hire a specific number or type of staff unless defendants propose to do so as part of a plan to remedy a failure to comply.

On February 8, 2016, Judge Jorgenson issued an order approving the settlement agreement, and agreeing to enforce its terms. There have been no further substantive developments in the case as of July 20, 2016.

Jenn Nelson - 10/10/2015
Ryan Berry - 07/20/2016


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Equal Protection
Content of Injunction
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Discrimination Prohibition
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Monitoring
Recordkeeping
Reporting
Required disclosure
Defendant-type
Corrections
Jurisdiction-wide
Discrimination-basis
Race discrimination
General
Racial segregation
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Race
Black
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) Arizona Department of Corrections
Arizona State Prison Complex-Tucson
The State of Arizona
Plaintiff Description An African-American male housed at the Arizon State Prison Complex in Tucson, Arizona. His housing assignment was made on the basis of his race.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 2016 - 2023
Case Closing Year n/a
Case Ongoing Yes
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Civil Rights Injunctions Over Time: A Case Study of Jail and Prison Court Orders
N.Y.U. Law Review
By: Margo Schlanger (Washington University)
Citation: 81 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 550 (2006)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Judicial Policy Making and the Modern State: How the Courts Reformed America's Prisons
By: Malcolm M. Feeley & Edward Rubin (UC Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law & Vanderbilt School of Law Faculty)
Citation: (1998)
[ Detail ]

Docket(s)
4:13-cv-01149 (D. Ariz.) 03/18/2016
PC-AZ-0020-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint 09/13/2013
PC-AZ-0020-0001.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
First Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint 02/04/2014
PC-AZ-0020-0004.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 05/08/2014 (D. Ariz.)
PC-AZ-0020-0005.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 07/23/2014 (D. Ariz.)
PC-AZ-0020-0006.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulation for Order 12/22/2015
PC-AZ-0020-0007.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulation for Payment of Monetary Damages 12/22/2015
PC-AZ-0020-0008.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [pursuant to stipulation] 02/08/2016 (D. Ariz.)
PC-AZ-0020-0009.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Jorgenson, Cindy K. (D. Ariz.)
PC-AZ-0020-0005 | PC-AZ-0020-0006 | PC-AZ-0020-0009 | PC-AZ-0020-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Brill, Laura W. (California)
PC-AZ-0020-9000
Deixler, Bert H. (California)
PC-AZ-0020-0004 | PC-AZ-0020-0007 | PC-AZ-0020-0008 | PC-AZ-0020-9000
Jackson, Randall C. (Texas)
PC-AZ-0020-9000
Palmer, Cassie D. (California)
PC-AZ-0020-9000
Rooney, Susannah M (California)
PC-AZ-0020-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Carter, Paul Edward (Arizona)
PC-AZ-0020-0007 | PC-AZ-0020-0008 | PC-AZ-0020-9000
Gottfried, Michael Evan (Arizona)
PC-AZ-0020-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -