University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name French v. Miller PC-IN-0003
Docket / Court 75-677 ( S.D. Ind. )
State/Territory Indiana
Case Type(s) Prison Conditions
Case Summary
On November 21, 1975, four inmates confined at the Indiana Reformatory in Pendleton, Indiana filed a pro se lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, challenging their conditions of confinement. The initial pro se complaint was dismissed ... read more >
On November 21, 1975, four inmates confined at the Indiana Reformatory in Pendleton, Indiana filed a pro se lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, challenging their conditions of confinement. The initial pro se complaint was dismissed by the Court with leave granted to re-file the case. On May 13, 1976, attorneys for the Legal Services Organization of Indianapolis, Indiana filed an amended class action complaint, alleging poor living conditions, inadequate medical care, lack of safety and security, bad food services, inadequate educational opportunities, insufficient access to the courts, and an arbitrary system of prison discipline at the Reformatory. The case was certified as a class action on December 20, 1977.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) was granted leave to participate as amicus curiae on March 10, 1978.

Trial began on July 5, 1978 and ended on August 14, 1978. It was reopened for further proceedings between March 1-5, 1982. The District Court (Judge S. Hugh Dillin) found for the plaintiff class and ordered changes to the operation of the Reformatory in the areas of: inmate population, medical care, food, sanitation, recreational opportunities, security, mental health programs, and fire safety. French v. Owens, 538 F.Supp. 910 (S.D. Ind. 1982). Defendants appealed.

The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit remanded to determine whether the injunctive relief ordered by the District Court was based on state law or the Eighth Amendment, in light of the recent Supreme Court decision Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Haldemzan, 465 US. 89, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984), which held that federal courts lacked jurisdiction over claims for injunctive relief against state officials based upon state law.

On remand, the District Court found that most of the Reformatory conditions violated the Eighth Amendment as well as state law. The Court issued an amended order in light of the Pennhurst case. The amended order also accounted for improvements that had been made at the Reformatory since the Court's original order. The defendants appealed again.

The Court of Appeals (Judge Richard Dickson Cudahy) affirmed in part, holding that conditions in the state prison such as overcrowding, double celling, unwholesome food, medical neglect, and threats to inmates' safety violated the Eighth Amendment. The Court of Appeals also vacated and remanded the judgment as it pertained to exercise, protective custody, and fire and occupational safety. French v. Owens, 777 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986).

In 1998, the defendants petitioned to terminate the injunction pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act [PLRA]. The District Court (Judge S. Hugh Dillin) granted a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the PLRA's automatic stay provision. The defendants appealed. The Court of Appeals (Judge Diane P. Wood) affirmed, holding that the automatic stay provision of the PLRA, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3626(e)(2), was unconstitutional. French v. Duckworth, 178 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 1999).

The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari and reversed and remanded, holding that the automatic stay provision of the PLRA did not violate separation of powers principles. Miller v. French 530 U.S. 327 (2000).

Following remand, the District Court's Decree Order was terminated on October 23, 2000 pursuant to the PLRA. According to information received from the state AGs office, upon its termination, the parties entered into a Private Settlement Agreement as to the continued operation of the Reformatory, which had been renamed as the Pendleton Correctional Facility. The Agreement expired by its own terms on October 23, 2002. No subsequent decrees or agreements were entered and the case remained closed as of the date of this summary.

Note that there was no PACER docket available for this case.

Rebekah Henn Sullivan - 03/06/2007


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Crowding
Crowding / caseload
General
Access to lawyers or judicial system
Disciplinary procedures
Education
Fire safety
Food service / nutrition / hydration
Recreation / Exercise
Sanitation / living conditions
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Totality of conditions
Medical/Mental Health
Medical care, unspecified
Mental health care, general
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) Indiana Reformatory
Pendleton Correctional Facility
Plaintiff Description All inmates confined, or who in the future would be confined, at the Indiana Reformatory in Pendleton, Indiana (later known as the Pendleton Correctional Facility).
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Litigation
Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 1975 - 2002
Case Closing Year 2002
Case Ongoing No
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 ]

Links The Oyez Project, Miller v. French, 530 U.S. 327 (2000).
www.oyez.org
Posted: Jun. 19, 2000
By: Oyez Project (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
No docket sheet currently in the collection
General Documents
Order 03/05/1982 (S.D. Ind.)
PC-IN-0003-0001.pdf | Detail
Memorandum of Decision 05/07/1982 (538 F.Supp. 910) (S.D. Ind.)
PC-IN-0003-0002.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Reported Opinion 02/12/1986 (777 F.2d 1250)
PC-IN-0003-0003.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Memorandum Decision 10/06/1986 (479 U.S. 817)
PC-IN-0003-0007.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Opinion 05/06/1999 (178 F.3d 437)
PC-IN-0003-0004.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Memorandum 11/06/1999 (528 U.S. 1045)
PC-IN-0003-0008.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Memorandum Decision 06/19/2000 (530 U.S. 327)
PC-IN-0003-0006.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Order 08/17/2000 (234 F.3d 1273)
PC-IN-0003-0005.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Judges Breyer, Stephen Gerald (SCOTUS, First Circuit)
PC-IN-0003-0006
Cudahy, Richard Dickson (Seventh Circuit)
PC-IN-0003-0003
Dillin, Samuel Hugh (S.D. Ind.)
PC-IN-0003-0001 | PC-IN-0003-0002
Eschbach, Jesse Ernest (N.D. Ind., Seventh Circuit)
PC-IN-0003-0003
Flaum, Joel Martin (N.D. Ill., Seventh Circuit)
PC-IN-0003-0004 | PC-IN-0003-0005
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader (SCOTUS, D.C. Circuit)
PC-IN-0003-0006
Kennedy, Anthony McLeod (SCOTUS, Ninth Circuit)
PC-IN-0003-0006
Morton, Leland Clure (M.D. Tenn.)
PC-IN-0003-0003
O'Connor, Sandra Day (SCOTUS)
PC-IN-0003-0006
Rehnquist, William Hubbs (SCOTUS)
PC-IN-0003-0006
Rovner, Ilana Kara Diamond (N.D. Ill., Seventh Circuit)
PC-IN-0003-0004 | PC-IN-0003-0005
Scalia, Antonin (SCOTUS, D.C. Circuit)
PC-IN-0003-0006 | PC-IN-0003-0007
Souter, David Hackett (SCOTUS, First Circuit)
PC-IN-0003-0006
Stevens, John Paul (SCOTUS, Seventh Circuit)
PC-IN-0003-0006
Thomas, Seth (Eighth Circuit)
PC-IN-0003-0006
Wood, Diane Pamela (Seventh Circuit)
PC-IN-0003-0004 | PC-IN-0003-0005
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Barker, Sarah Evans (Indiana)
PC-IN-0003-0002
Bickham, Harold R. (Indiana)
PC-IN-0003-0002
Falk, Kenneth J. (Indiana)
PC-IN-0003-0004 | PC-IN-0003-0006
Kashani, Hamid R. (Indiana)
PC-IN-0003-0004
Lundberg, Donald R. (Indiana)
PC-IN-0003-0002 | PC-IN-0003-0003
Ory, Charles (District of Columbia)
PC-IN-0003-0002
Whinston, Stephen A. (District of Columbia)
PC-IN-0003-0002
Defendant's Lawyers Arthur, David A. (Indiana)
PC-IN-0003-0002 | PC-IN-0003-0003 | PC-IN-0003-0004
Laramore, Jon B. (Indiana)
PC-IN-0003-0004 | PC-IN-0003-0006
Pearson, Linley E. (Indiana)
PC-IN-0003-0002
Other Lawyers Schlanger, Margo (District of Columbia)
PC-IN-0003-0004
Underwood, Barbara D. (District of Columbia)
PC-IN-0003-0006

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -