University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Lecclier v. Bayh PC-IN-0005
Docket / Court 90-1460 ( S.D. Ind. )
State/Territory Indiana
Case Type(s) Prison Conditions
Case Summary
Plaintiffs filed a class action suit on behalf of all current and future inmates confined at the Reception and Diagnostic Center (RDC) of the Indiana Department of Corrections asserting that the conditions of the facility were below standards of human decency in violation of the Sixth, Eighth and ... read more >
Plaintiffs filed a class action suit on behalf of all current and future inmates confined at the Reception and Diagnostic Center (RDC) of the Indiana Department of Corrections asserting that the conditions of the facility were below standards of human decency in violation of the Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The complaint was filed in the Southern District of Indiana on June 13, 1990 by attorneys with the Indiana Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU National Prison Project. Plaintiffs were seeking a declaratory judgment that their constitutional rights were being violated and an order to enjoin Defendants from subjecting them to unconstitutional conditions and practices.

In the complaint, plaintiffs asserted that the RDC, a maximum security prison where inmates are evaluated and classified before being transferred to a prison to serve their sentence, was operating at more than double its capacity, in part because the duration of an average stay had significantly increased. This crowding, plaintiffs claimed, resulted in an overtaxing of the facilities creating health and safety threats for the inmates. Additionally, plaintiffs claimed that basic services were not being provided. Specifically, they cited deficiencies in or the absence of adequate segregation policies, meaningful health care, recreational programming, visitation policies, and access an adequate legal library and religious services.

On July 5, 1991, a little more than a year after the complaint was filed, the district court (Judge Larry J. McKinney) approved for entry a settlement agreement between the parties. Lecclier v. Bayh, No. 90-1460 (S.D. Ind. July 5, 1991) (entry of settlement agreement). The agreement changed the polices relating to longer-term residents at the facility. Beginning July 1, 1991, non-cell areas were not to be used for housing inmates. A number of cells were to be set aside for longest-term inmates who maintained good conduct. Those inmates would have expanded privileges including more out-of-cell recreation time, the provision of more recreational materials, and increased telephone access. All inmates would receive more outdoor recreation time and equipment, access to an updated law library and the benefits of a written policy regarding the evaluation of separation of different classes of offenders. The agreement stated that visitation and medical care issues were had not been litigated or ruled upon by the court. Finally, the agreement gave the court jurisdiction over the case and implementation of the agreement for a two year period and provided that if plaintiffs did not allege noncompliance or defendants did not seek modification of the agreement, the case would close.

The docket for this case is not available on PACER, and therefore our information ends with the July 5, 1991 court order.

Sherrie Waldrup - 10/21/2005


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Crowding
Crowding / caseload
General
Administrative segregation
Law library access
Library (non-law) access
Recreation / Exercise
Sanitation / living conditions
Totality of conditions
Visiting
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Defendant(s) Reception and Diagnostic Center
Plaintiff Description all current and future inmates confined at the Reception and Diagnostic Center (RDC) of the Indiana Department of Corrections
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 Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 1991 - n/a
Case Closing Year n/a
Case Ongoing Unknown
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)
90-1460 (S.D. Ind.) 08/01/1991
PC-IN-0005-9000 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint 06/13/1990
PC-IN-0005-0001 PDF | Detail
Agreed Entry 07/05/1991
PC-IN-0005-0002 PDF | Detail
Judges Foster, Kennard P. (S.D. Ind.) [Magistrate]
PC-IN-0005-9000
McKinney, Larry J. (S.D. Ind.)
PC-IN-0005-0002 | PC-IN-0005-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Hillman, Peggy A. (Indiana)
PC-IN-0005-0001
Koren, Edward I. (District of Columbia)
PC-IN-0005-0001 | PC-IN-0005-0002
Lopez, Mark J. (District of Columbia)
PC-IN-0005-0001 | PC-IN-0005-0002 | PC-IN-0005-9000
Waples, Richard A. (Indiana)
PC-IN-0005-0001 | PC-IN-0005-0002 | PC-IN-0005-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Fogle, Andrew J. (Indiana)
PC-IN-0005-0002
Uhl, Wayne Elliott (Indiana)
PC-IN-0005-0002 | PC-IN-0005-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -