University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Balla v. Board of Corrections PC-ID-0004
Docket / Court 81-1165 ( D. Idaho )
State/Territory Idaho
Case Type(s) Prison Conditions
Attorney Organization ACLU National (all projects)
Case Summary
On May 15, 1981, an inmate at the Idaho State Correctional Institution ("ISCI") filed a class action lawsuit against the Idaho State Board of Corrections in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho alleging Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ... read more >
On May 15, 1981, an inmate at the Idaho State Correctional Institution ("ISCI") filed a class action lawsuit against the Idaho State Board of Corrections in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho alleging Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as well as numerous state claims. The allegations included: (1) the prison was overcrowded and understaffed, increasing the likelihood of violence; (2) the classification system at the prison, which placed new inmates in "close custody" until they proved by their behavior they should be moved, subjected inmates to physical and sexual assault; (3) medical care was deficient and resulted in deliberate indifference to the serious needs of the inmates; (4) the food was inadequate in terms of both quality and quantity; (5) significant disparities existed between the way protective custody (high threat) and medium custody (low threat) inmates were treated especially in terms of clothing and food portions; and (6) the manner in which the prison staff conducted both reclassification and parole hearings violated the inmates' rights to due process. After being represented by a lay inmate, plaintiffs were subsequently represented by the ACLU and private counsel. Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief, injunction, and damages.

After a thirteen day trial, the District Court (Judge Harold Ryan) ordered that (1) if inmates were to be double celled, then the prison would have to employ twice the security personnel; (2) the classification scheme must be altered to protect younger inmates; (3) 24-hour emergency medical care should be made available and the prison must develop a plan to improve its medical care services within 180 days; (4) the prison must improve its food services including taking into account special dietary needs of inmates; (5) protective custody inmates must be given insulated underwear to augment their inadequate clothing or be given clothing equal to that of inmates in medium custody; and (6) the prison administration shall develop a procedure prior to inmate disciplinary hearings that will ensure inmates' due process rights are protected. Balla v. Idaho State Bd. of Corr. (Balla I), 595 F.Supp. 1558 (D. Idaho 1984).

Plaintiffs moved for contempt against defendants, which the court subsequently denied. Then, after a series of compliance hearings, the court decided to have an expert examine the facility to determine whether the overcrowding amounted to a constitutional violation. After the inspection, the court (Judge Ryan) determined that the overcrowded conditions of the prison violated the inmates' Eighth Amendment rights. The court ordered a permanent injunction against the prison and placed occupancy limits on several of the cell units, enjoined defendants from housing inmates in day rooms or rooms not designed to for cell purposes, and ordered that plumbing malfunctions in the prison be remedied within forty-eight hours. Balla v. Bd. of Corr. (Balla II), 656 F.Supp. 1108 (D. Idaho 1987).

On March 3, 1989, with defendants still failing to solve overcrowding problems in cell units, plaintiffs appealed the court's denial of the motion for contempt and defendants requested an extension of time to meet the occupancy limits set by Balla II. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Judge John Wallace) denied both the appeal and the request for a time extension. The court also found that the prison was not required to establish a special psychological treatment program for sex offenders. Balla v. Idaho State Bd. of Corr., 869 F.2d 461 (9th Cir. 1989).

In 2003, defendants, still out of compliance with the court's injunctions, filed a motion to terminate injunctive relief pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), which limits prospective relief in certain circumstances, seeking to terminate the injunctions set forth in Balla I and Balla II. A hearing was held in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho, and the court (Judge James Fitzgerald) denied defendants' motion finding that there were current and ongoing violations of the injunctive order, and it ordered that overcrowding and plumbing issues currently plaguing the prison be addressed immediately. Balla v. Idaho Bd. of Corrections, No. CV81-1165, 2005 WL 2403817 (D. Idaho Sept. 26, 2005). The prison population had grown from approximately 750 in 1987 to 1,416 prisoners in 2005. The court noted that "[s]eventeen years after the injunctive orders . . . Defendants return to Court, requesting relief under conditions that are worse . . . than when the original injunctive orders were put in place." The court (Judge Fitzgerald) subsequently denied defendants' motion to reconsider and awarded plaintiffs attorneys' fees totaling over $150,000. Balla v. Idaho Bd. of Corrections, No. CV81-1165, 2005 WL 3412806 (D. Idaho Dec. 9, 2005).

In response to the decision, Idaho prison officials transferred more than 300 prisoners to a Corrections Corporation of America prison in Appleton, Minnesota, at a cost of $1.1 million. According to news reports, prison officials plan to ask the state legislature for $160 million to construct three new prisons, and for an additional $7.9 million to cover the cost of housing overflow prisoners both out-of-state and in county jail cells.

In January of 2006, plaintiffs moved for a TRO, a preliminary injunction, and for a finding of contempt, arguing that defendants' planned construction work on plumbing at ISCI deprived them of regular access to showers in violation of the permanent injunction in Balla II and their constitutional rights. In June, the District Court (Judge Edward J. Lodge) denied plaintiffs' motions, holding that plaintiffs "fail[ed] to state a cognizable constitutional claim" and that nothing in the record links the allegations to dangerous hygienic conditions from the lack of showers. Balla v. Idaho Bd. of Corr., No. CV81-1165, 2006 WL 1793555 (D. Idaho June 28, 2006).

In February of 2007, less than eighteen months after the Court denied the defendants' motion to terminate prospective relief, the defendants again asked the court to free them from their obligations, specifically with regard to the inmate population cap. On March 16, 2007, the Court (Judge B. Lynn Winmill) granted the plainitffs' motion to postpone the automatic stay that would result from defendants' motion. The Court also issued show cause orders, stating that it intended to reappoint a Federal Rule of Evidence 706 expert to assess defendants' compliance with the population cap; that defendants would be responsible for paying his fees; that the Court would be appointing counsel to represent plaintiffs; and that the defendants would be responsible for paying their attorneys' fees on a monthly basis. Ten days later, the defendants withdrew their motion to terminate.

Despite the withdrawal of defendants' motion, plaintiffs continued to seek appointment of new class representatives. Plaintiffs' counsel, appointed by the court, argued that this would facilitate consultation with inmates about prison conditions and reduce the number of individual claims that may arise from alleged overcrowding. The Court (Judge Winmill) agreed, appointed new class representatives, and ordered that defendants provide plaintiffs' counsel thirty days' notice in the event they decide to refile a motion to terminate the injunctive orders. The Court also granted Plaintiffs' counsel attorneys' fees totaling just under $18,000 for their work on defendants' withdrawn motion. Balla v. Idaho Bd. of Corr., No. CV-81-1165, 2007 WL 4531304 (D. Idaho Dec. 18, 2007).

In January of 2009, a riot broke out at ISCI that destroyed a nearly-completed new inmate housing unit. As a result of the riot, defendants were forced to house inmates at ISCI in excess of the population caps imposed by the Court. Plaintiffs moved the Court for an order holding defendants in contempt of the Balla injunctions. On May 28, 2009, the Court (Judge Winmill) denied plaintiffs' motion. The Court found that "no good choices were open to [defendants] for managing the increased population in the immediate aftermath of the riot," short of exceeding the population caps. The Court also noted that defendants had returned the prison population to pre-riot levels in about three-and-a-half weeks. Balla v. Idaho Bd. of Corr., No. CV 81-1165, 2009 WL 1513182 (D. Idaho May 28, 2009). On the same day, the Court resolved a lingering dispute as to whether the Balla I and Balla II injunctions could be enforced through contempt motions, finding that they could. Balla v. Idaho Bd. of Corr., No. CV81-1165, 2009 WL 1574454 (D. Idaho May 28, 2009).

On March 30, 2010, the Court granted plaintiffs' attorneys' fees in the amount of $76,185.60 and costs in the amount of $1,249.20 for monitoring work during the period of December 11, 2007 through June 22, 2009. The Court also indicated it would schedule a status conference to discuss monitoring of the case going forward. Balla v. Idaho Bd. of Corr., No. CV 81-1165, 2010 WL 1338065 (D. Idaho Mar. 30, 2010). The state appealed this order, and the District Court (Judge Winmill) denied a stay pending appeal. Balla v. Idaho Bd. of Corr., No. CV 81-1165, 2010 WL 3001442 (D. Idaho July 28, 2010). The Ninth Circuit subsequently affirmed the award of fees. Balla v. Idaho, 677 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2012).

On January 6, 2011, the Court (Judge Winmill) ordered the parties to submit names of candidates to serve as special master. In speaking of the need for a special master, the Court stated that evidence supported "colorable allegations of continuing class-wide Eighth Amendment violations with respect to inadequate medical and psychiatric care," convincing the Court that it could not close the case under the present circumstances. The Court remarked that "[i]n its current posture . . . the case languishes in a sort of no man's land, with neither side apparently ready or willing to take the offensive, which does not further the Court's goal of moving the case in a positive direction, decreasing oversight, and protecting the rights of the inmate class. In short, the Court and the parties need assistance [from a special master] in breaking this stalemate and moving toward finality." Balla v. Idaho Bd. of Corr., No. 81-cv-1165, 2011 WL 108727 (D. Idaho Jan. 6, 2011). Six months later, the Court appointed Dr. Marc F. Stern as special master.

On March 19, 2012, the special master issued a report in which he reviewed the state of healthcare at ISCI. The master noted that there were "serious problems" with delivery of medical and mental healthcare services. He also noted that defendants' willingness to entertain change is "very positive and commendable."

Following the issuance of the special master's report, the case was referred to District Judge David O. Carter (C.D. Cal.) for the purpose of conducting a settlement conference. Settlement discussions took place over a number of days in April and May 2012.

In May of 2012, the parties stipulated to modify the injunctive relief sought in the case. The stipulation set forth a framework for continued monitoring, including the formulation of modified compliance plans; monitoring meetings; and a compliance audit with the National Commission on Correctional Health Care.

On February 8, 2013, the Court (Judge Winmill) again awarded interim attorneys' fees to Plaintiffs' counsel. It awarded $172,917.10 in fees and $1,994.29 in costs. Balla v. Idaho Bd. of Corr., No. CV81-1165, 2013 WL 501646 (D. Idaho Feb. 8, 2013).

Settlement conferences continued in May and August 2013 and April 2014. An additional conference is scheduled for January 2015.

Emilee Baker - 05/09/2006
Dan Whitman - 01/25/2015


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Male
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Content of Injunction
Monitor/Master
Preliminary relief denied
Crowding
Crowding / caseload
Pre-PLRA Population Cap
Defendant-type
Jurisdiction-wide
General
Assault/abuse by residents/inmates/students
Assault/abuse by staff
Bathing and hygiene
Classification / placement
Conditions of confinement
Disciplinary procedures
Disciplinary segregation
Food service / nutrition / hydration
Sanitation / living conditions
Sexual abuse by residents/inmates
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Totality of conditions
Medical/Mental Health
Medical care, general
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) Idaho Board of Corrections
Plaintiff Description Inmates at the Idaho State Correctional Institution
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU National (all projects)
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Attorneys fees
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Litigation
Form of Settlement None on record
Order Duration 1984 - n/a
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)
81-1165 (D. Idaho) 11/26/2014
PC-ID-0004-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Memorandum Opinion, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order 11/01/1984 (595 F.Supp. 1558) (D. Idaho)
PC-ID-0004-0004.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order 03/25/1987 (656 F.Supp. 1108) (D. Idaho)
PC-ID-0004-0002.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Reported Opinion 03/08/1989 (869 F.2d 461)
PC-ID-0004-0003.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Memorandum Decision and Order 09/22/2005 (D. Idaho)
PC-ID-0004-0001.pdf | Detail
MEMORANDUM ORDER 06/28/2006 (2006 WL 1793555) (D. Idaho)
PC-ID-0004-0005.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order and Order to Show Cause 03/16/2007 (D. Idaho)
PC-ID-0004-0006.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 12/18/2007 (2007 WL 4531304) (D. Idaho)
PC-ID-0004-0007.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Memorandum Decision and Order 05/28/2009 (2009 WL 1513182) (D. Idaho)
PC-ID-0004-0008.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Decision and Order 05/28/2009 (2009 WL 1574454) (D. Idaho)
PC-ID-0004-0009.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Order 03/30/2010 (2010 WL 1338065) (D. Idaho)
PC-ID-0004-0010.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Memorandum Decision and Order 07/28/2010 (2010 WL 3001442) (D. Idaho)
PC-ID-0004-0011.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Order 01/06/2011 (2011 WL 108727) (D. Idaho)
PC-ID-0004-0012.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
[REDACTED] 03/19/2012
PC-ID-0004-0013.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion 04/17/2012 (D. Idaho)
PC-ID-0004-0014.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulated Motion to Modify Injunctive Relief 05/15/2012
PC-ID-0004-0015.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Decision and Order 02/08/2013 (2013 WL 501646) (D. Idaho)
PC-ID-0004-0016.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Judges Carter, David O. (C.D. Cal.)
PC-ID-0004-9000
Fitzgerald, James Martin (D. Alaska)
PC-ID-0004-0001
Hug, Procter Ralph Jr. (Ninth Circuit)
PC-ID-0004-0003
Kleinfeld, Andrew Jay (D. Alaska, Ninth Circuit) [Magistrate]
PC-ID-0004-0014
Ryan, Harold Lyman (D. Idaho)
PC-ID-0004-0002 | PC-ID-0004-0004
Wallace, John Clifford (Ninth Circuit, S.D. Cal.)
PC-ID-0004-0003
Winmill, B. Lynn (D. Idaho)
PC-ID-0004-0005 | PC-ID-0004-0006 | PC-ID-0004-0007 | PC-ID-0004-0008 | PC-ID-0004-0009 | PC-ID-0004-0010 | PC-ID-0004-0011 | PC-ID-0004-0012 | PC-ID-0004-0016 | PC-ID-0004-9000
Wright, Eugene Allen (Ninth Circuit)
PC-ID-0004-0003
Monitors/Masters Ruiz, Amanda (California)
PC-ID-0004-9000
Stern, Marc F. (Washington)
PC-ID-0004-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Blackman, Allison M. (Idaho)
PC-ID-0004-0015 | PC-ID-0004-9000
Dixon, Bradley J. (Idaho)
PC-ID-0004-9000
Patterson, George (Idaho)
PC-ID-0004-9000
Pevar, Stephen L. (Colorado)
PC-ID-0004-0003 | PC-ID-0004-9000
Pooser, William C. (Idaho)
PC-ID-0004-9000
Prince, James Emerson (Idaho)
PC-ID-0004-0015 | PC-ID-0004-9000
Schwartzmiller, Dean (Idaho)
PC-ID-0004-0002
Sinclair, J. Walter (Idaho)
PC-ID-0004-9000
Watkins, Elijah Martin (Idaho)
PC-ID-0004-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Gates, Robert R. (Idaho)
PC-ID-0004-0002 | PC-ID-0004-0003 | PC-ID-0004-0004 | PC-ID-0004-0015 | PC-ID-0004-9000
Gilmore, Michael S. (Idaho)
PC-ID-0004-9000
Goodenough, Fred (Idaho)
PC-ID-0004-9000
Jones, Jim (Idaho)
PC-ID-0004-0002
Kubinski, Mark A. (Idaho)
PC-ID-0004-0015 | PC-ID-0004-9000
Loomis, William M. (Idaho)
PC-ID-0004-9000
McNeese, Timothy R. (Idaho)
PC-ID-0004-0002 | PC-ID-0004-9000
Murphy, Michaelina (California)
PC-ID-0004-9000
Panther, Paul R. (Idaho)
PC-ID-0004-9000
Zahn, Colleen D. (Idaho)
PC-ID-0004-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -