University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Kendrick v. Bland PC-KY-0007
Docket / Court 76-79 ( W.D. Ky. )
State/Territory Kentucky
Case Type(s) Prison Conditions
Case Summary
In September 1976, inmates at Kentucky State Penitentiary (KSP), joined in 1979 by inmates at Kentucky State Reformatory (KSR), filed a class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Paducah Division. The ... read more >
In September 1976, inmates at Kentucky State Penitentiary (KSP), joined in 1979 by inmates at Kentucky State Reformatory (KSR), filed a class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Paducah Division. The plaintiffs, who at first filed pro se, were later represented by the Southern Prisoners Defense Committee and assisted by the U.S. Department of Justice as amicus curiae. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including the firing of several Captains, alleging that the conditions of confinement constituted cruel and unusual punishment violative of the Eighth Amendment, as well as deprivations of due process violative of the Fourteenth Amendment. A class was certified in October 1978, and was subsequently consolidated with a class action on behalf of all inmates at Kentucky State Reformatory (KSR).

On March 21, 1980, the District Court (Judge Edward H. Johnstone) issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the use of unnecessary physical force, mace, or restraints on any inmate.

On May 28, 1980, the District Court (Judge Johnstone) approved a consent decree regarding a broad range of prison conditions. The consent decree provided for (a) a reduction in the prison population at KSP and regulations in the construction of housing, (b) classification, (c) programs, (d) food service, (e) due process, (f) segregation, (g) access to the courts, (h) inmate mail, and (i) recreation and exercise. The decree contained no expiration date and provided that "the Court shall retain jurisdiction in this case until the plan submitted to the Court is fully implemented."

On July 22, 1980, the Judge Johnstone entered a supplemental partial consent decree that made permanent the preliminary injunction.

Following a trial from July 21-25, 1980, on the issue of guard harassment (an issue excluded from the consent decree), on October 22, 1980, the District Court (Judge Johnstone) found that the plaintiffs had demonstrated an unacceptable pattern of harassment. On November 12, 1981, the District Court (Judge Johnstone), declared that "just as the Consent Decree requires renovation of the bricks and mortar of the prison, so too must the attitudes of prisoners and corrections personnel be renovated to ensure progress that will satisfy the mandate of the Constitution." Kendrick v. Bland, 541 F. Supp. 21 (W.D. Ky. 1981). Judge Johnstone held that the use of an informant system was destructive of penological goals, that the operation of a special needs unit, where wholly untrained guards were assigned to inmates with severe mental impairment, resulted in cruel and unusual punishment, and directed the plaintiffs and defendants to submit proposals for regulation of the use of informants, adequate staffing and placement of inmates in the special needs unit. Both an appeal and cross-appeal were taken.

On July 27, 1984, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (Judge Robert Krupansky) reversed in part and remanded. Kendrick v. Bland, 740 F.2d 432 (6th Cir. 1984). The Court held that the District Court's remedy of enjoining the officials from performing certain activities was not the least intrusive remedy available and therefore exceeded its authority.

On May 29, 1984, the District Court (Judge Johnstone) found the defendants in partial violation of the consent decree. Kendrick v. Bland, 586 F. Supp. 1536 (W.D. Ky. 1984). Judge Johnstone held that the law libraries were not sufficient to provide all inmates with meaningful access to the courts, but that the denial of unlimited free access to photocopier and other legal supplies and services did not necessarily deny prisoners access to the courts. Judge Johnstone ordered the defendants to purchase and maintain a law library collection, designate a KSP staff member to supervise the collection and legal aides, hire not less than 10 legal aides at KSP, and make the consent decree available to inmates.

The inmates subsequently brought a contempt motion alleging that denying visitation privileges without a hearing violated the original consent decree. On June 26, 1986, the District Court (Judge Johnstone) held that the visitation policy did not violate the consent decree per se. Thompson v. Bland, 664 F. Supp. 261 (W.D. Ky. 1986). Judge Johnstone held that, under the consent decree, inmates had a protected liberty interest in open visitation, and directed the defendants to develop procedures to ensure inmates received notice of and reasons for revocation and had an opportunity to respond. The Kentucky Department of Corrections appealed.

After a hearing on compliance with the consent decree, on March 11, 1987, the District Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to incorporate the prisons' policies and procedures into the consent decree. The plaintiffs appealed. And on March 13, 1987, the District Court (Judge Johnstone) further held that prison officials were in compliance with the consent decree with one exception, which alone would continue to be monitored. Kendrick v. Bland, 659 F. Supp. 1188 (W.D. Ky. 1987). Judge Johnstone held that the policies and procedures that resulted from the consent decree had resulted in "vast improvements in the two institutions, and the state correctional system as a whole" and that significant improvements had occurred in dormitories and administrative buildings, fire and safety procedures, population numbers, and the conditions of confinement; Judge Johnstone found that the capital construction and renovation projects were not complete and recognized that complete compliance with the consent decree would not occur until 1996. Importantly, Judge Johnstone granted that, in the event of major violations, the parties may apply to the court for reinstatement of the case on its active docket.

On March 31, 1988, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (Judge Leo Ryan) affirmed the March 11, 1987, decision of the District Court. Thompson v. Bland, No. 87-5385, 1988 WL 27538 (6th Cir. March 31, 1988).

On November 19, 1987, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (Judge Boyce F. Martin Jr.) affirmed in part the District Court's June 26, 1986, ruling on visitation and remanded. Thompson v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Dept. of Corrections, 833 F.2d 614 (6th Cir. 1988). The Court held that the procedures adopted to govern visitation at KSR created a liberty interest and remand was necessary to determine what regulations governed prisoners at other institutions within the Kentucky prison system.

On September 1, 1988, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (per curiam) affirmed the District Court's March 13, 1987, ruling on compliance. Smith v. Bland, No. 87-5460, 1988 WL 90900 (6th Cir. Sept. 1, 1988). The Court "commend[ed] the district court for its long and diligent efforts in regulating this lawsuit" noting that "those have contributed significantly to obvious and substantial improvements in the conditions under which inmates in the Kentucky prison system are housed."

After the plaintiffs' counsel apparently failed to appeal the March 13, 1987, order, on June 27, 1988, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' pro se motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the defendant's petition for writ of certiorari to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Kentucky, Dept. of Corrections v. Thompson, 487 U.S. 1217 (1988).

On May 15, 1989, the Supreme Court (Justice Harry A. Blackmun) reversed the Sixth Circuit's November 19, 1987 decision. Kentucky Dept. of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454 (1989). The Court held that the prison regulations setting forth categories of visitors who might be excluded did not give inmates a liberty interest in receiving visitors. And on August 17, 1989, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (per curiam) vacated its judgment and remanded to the District Court to proceed consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling. Thompson v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Dept. of Corrections, 882 F.2d 217 (6th Cir. 1989).

Some litigation followed with respect to appointment of counsel. Kendrick v. Bland, No. 90-5336, 1990 WL 92660 (6th Cir. June 27, 1990).

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (per curiam) subsequently agreed on numerous occasions that oral arguments were not needed to review a number of District Court orders. The Court affirmed most orders with respect to contempt, remanding only for clarification of the consent decree, and granted pauper status for one plaintiff against the District Court's order. Kendrick v. Bland, No. 90-5829, 1991 WL 21992 (6th Cir. Feb. 20, 1991); Kendrick v. Bland, 931 F.2d 421 (6th Cir. 1991); Kendrick v. Bland, No. 91-5147, 1991 WL 177930 (6th Cir. Sept. 12, 1991); Hearne v. Bridges, No. 90-5482, 1991 WL 253161 (6th Cir. Nov. 29, 1991).

On February 18, 1992, the district court granted the defendants' motion to end active supervision and "relinquish jurisdiction" over the Consent Decree. The 6th Circuit affirmed. Melson v. Bland, No. 92-5393, 1993 WL 230292 (6th Cir. June 25, 1993).

Josh Altman - 06/11/2006


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Content of Injunction
Preliminary relief granted
Crowding
Crowding / caseload
General
Access to lawyers or judicial system
Classification / placement
Disciplinary procedures
Disciplinary segregation
Food service / nutrition / hydration
Law library access
Mail
Recreation / Exercise
Visiting
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) Kentucky State Penitentiary
Kentucky State Reformatory
Plaintiff Description Inmates at Kentucky State Penitentiary and Kentucky State Reformatory.
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 Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 1981 - 1993
Case Closing Year 1993
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 ]

  Voices from a Southern Prison
By: Lloyd C. Anderson (University of Akron)
Citation: University of Georgia Press (2000)
[ Detail ]

Links The Oyez Project, Kentucky Dept of Corrections v Thompson, 490 U.S. 454 (1989)
www.oyez.org
Posted: May. 15, 1989
By: Oyez Project (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
No docket sheet currently in the collection
General Documents
Memorandum Opinion, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment (INCLUDES CONSENT DECREE) 11/12/1981 (541 F.Supp. 21) (W.D. Ky.)
PC-KY-0007-0001.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Memorandum Opinion, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment 05/29/1984 (586 F.Supp. 1536) (W.D. Ky.)
PC-KY-0007-0002.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Reported Opinion 07/27/1984 (740 F.2d 432)
PC-KY-0007-0003.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Reported Opinion 06/26/1986 (664 F.Supp. 261) (W.D. Ky.)
PC-KY-0007-0004.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Memorandum Opinion Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 03/13/1987 (659 F.Supp. 1188) (W.D. Ky.)
PC-KY-0007-0007.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Reported Opinion 11/19/1987 (833 F.2d 614)
PC-KY-0007-0005.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Unpublished Opinion 03/31/1988 (843 F.2d 1392)
PC-KY-0007-0009.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Opinion 06/27/1988 (487 U.S. 1217)
PC-KY-0007-0016.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Unpublished Opinion 09/01/1988 (856 F.2d 196)
PC-KY-0007-0010.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Reported Opinion 05/15/1989 (490 U.S. 454)
PC-KY-0007-0017.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Opinion 06/27/1990 (907 F.2d 150)
PC-KY-0007-0011.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Opinion 02/04/1991 (931 F.2d 421)
PC-KY-0007-0008.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Opinion 02/20/1991 (925 F.2d 1464)
PC-KY-0007-0012.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Opinion 09/12/1991 (944 F.2d 905)
PC-KY-0007-0013.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Unpublished Opinion 11/29/1991 (948 F.2d 1289)
PC-KY-0007-0014.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Opinion 06/25/1993 (996 F.2d 1216)
PC-KY-0007-0015.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Judges Blackmun, Harry Andrew (Eighth Circuit, SCOTUS)
PC-KY-0007-0017
Brennan, William Joseph Jr. (SCOTUS)
PC-KY-0007-0017
Engel, Albert Joseph (Sixth Circuit, W.D. Mich.)
PC-KY-0007-0011 | PC-KY-0007-0015
Hackett, Barbara Kloka (E.D. Mich.) [Magistrate]
PC-KY-0007-0012
Jarvis, James Howard II (E.D. Tenn)
PC-KY-0007-0010
Johnstone, Edward Huggins (W.D. Ky.)
PC-KY-0007-0001 | PC-KY-0007-0002 | PC-KY-0007-0004 | PC-KY-0007-0007
Jones, Nathaniel Raphael (Sixth Circuit)
PC-KY-0007-0011 | PC-KY-0007-0014
Keith, Damon Jerome (Sixth Circuit, E.D. Mich.)
PC-KY-0007-0009 | PC-KY-0007-0011 | PC-KY-0007-0013
Kennedy, Anthony McLeod (Ninth Circuit, SCOTUS)
PC-KY-0007-0017
Kennedy, Cornelia Groefsema (Sixth Circuit, E.D. Mich.)
PC-KY-0007-0008 | PC-KY-0007-0015
Krupansky, Robert B. (Sixth Circuit, N.D. Ohio)
PC-KY-0007-0003
Lively, Pierce (Sixth Circuit)
PC-KY-0007-0014
Marshall, Thurgood (Second Circuit, SCOTUS)
PC-KY-0007-0017
Martin, Boyce Ficklen Jr. (Sixth Circuit)
PC-KY-0007-0005 | PC-KY-0007-0009 | PC-KY-0007-0010 | PC-KY-0007-0013
Milburn, Herbert Theodore (Sixth Circuit, E.D. Tenn)
PC-KY-0007-0014
Miles, Wendell Alverson (FISC, W.D. Mich.)
PC-KY-0007-0008
Nelson, David Aldrich (Sixth Circuit)
PC-KY-0007-0012
Norris, Alan Eugene (Sixth Circuit)
PC-KY-0007-0008 | PC-KY-0007-0015
O'Connor, Sandra Day (SCOTUS)
PC-KY-0007-0017
Rehnquist, William Hubbs (SCOTUS)
PC-KY-0007-0017
Ryan, James Leo (Sixth Circuit)
PC-KY-0007-0009
Scalia, Antonin (D.C. Circuit, SCOTUS)
PC-KY-0007-0017
Stevens, John Paul (Seventh Circuit, SCOTUS)
PC-KY-0007-0017
Suhrheinrich, Richard Fred (Sixth Circuit, E.D. Mich.)
PC-KY-0007-0012
Taylor, Anna Katherine Johnston Diggs (E.D. Mich.)
PC-KY-0007-0013
Wellford, Harry Walker (Sixth Circuit, W.D. Tenn.)
PC-KY-0007-0010
White, Byron Raymond (SCOTUS)
PC-KY-0007-0017
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Banazynski, Thomas J. (Kentucky)
PC-KY-0007-0002 | PC-KY-0007-0003
Barber, Oliver H. Jr. (Kentucky)
PC-KY-0007-0001 | PC-KY-0007-0002 | PC-KY-0007-0003 | PC-KY-0007-0007
Burr, Richard H. III (Tennessee)
PC-KY-0007-0001
Elder, Joseph S. II (Kentucky)
PC-KY-0007-0002 | PC-KY-0007-0004 | PC-KY-0007-0005 | PC-KY-0007-0007 | PC-KY-0007-0017
Freeman, Christine A. (Georgia)
PC-KY-0007-0002 | PC-KY-0007-0003
Lee, Robert A. (Kentucky)
PC-KY-0007-0005 | PC-KY-0007-0007
Peters, James Allen (Kentucky)
PC-KY-0007-0008
Walker, Patricia G. (Kentucky)
PC-KY-0007-0002 | PC-KY-0007-0003
Defendant's Lawyers Cooper, Linda G. (Kentucky)
PC-KY-0007-0002 | PC-KY-0007-0003 | PC-KY-0007-0004 | PC-KY-0007-0005 | PC-KY-0007-0007
Isaacs, Paul (Kentucky)
PC-KY-0007-0001
Jones, Barbara Willett (Kentucky)
PC-KY-0007-0002 | PC-KY-0007-0003 | PC-KY-0007-0004 | PC-KY-0007-0005 | PC-KY-0007-0007 | PC-KY-0007-0008 | PC-KY-0007-0017
Malone, Connie V. (Kentucky)
PC-KY-0007-0008
Master, Barry L. (Kentucky)
PC-KY-0007-0007
Payne, Gary D. (Kentucky)
PC-KY-0007-0008
Sexton, David A. (Kentucky)
PC-KY-0007-0002 | PC-KY-0007-0005
Vose, Leslie Patterson (Kentucky)
PC-KY-0007-0007
Willett, Barbara (Kentucky)
PC-KY-0007-0001
Other Lawyers Burrow, Adjoa A. (District of Columbia)
PC-KY-0007-0001
Dale, Mitchell W. (District of Columbia)
PC-KY-0007-0007
Fleetwood, Martha A. (District of Columbia)
PC-KY-0007-0001
Moore, Shawn F. (District of Columbia)
PC-KY-0007-0001 | PC-KY-0007-0003
Ovey, Glycon L. Jr. (Kentucky)
PC-KY-0007-0007

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -