University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name U.S. v. Maryland JI-MD-0003
Docket / Court 1:05-cv-01772-JFM ( D. Md. )
State/Territory Maryland
Case Type(s) Juvenile Institution
Case Summary
On August 30, 2002, the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") notified State of Maryland officials of its intent to investigate conditions of confinement at the Cheltenham Youth Facility ("Cheltenham") in Cheltenham, Maryland and the Charles H. Hickey, Jr. School ("Hickey") in Baltimore, ... read more >
On August 30, 2002, the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") notified State of Maryland officials of its intent to investigate conditions of confinement at the Cheltenham Youth Facility ("Cheltenham") in Cheltenham, Maryland and the Charles H. Hickey, Jr. School ("Hickey") in Baltimore, Maryland, pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act ("CRIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1997, and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141 ("Section 14141"). Between April 28 and June 12, 2003, the DOJ toured Cheltenham and Hickey with consultants in the fields of juvenile justice, medical care, mental health care, education and sanitation. At the time of the tours and until April 1, 2004, Hickey was operated by a for-profit corporation. On April 9, 2004, the United States issued a findings letter pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997(a)(1), which concluded that certain conditions at Cheltenham and Hickey violated the constitutional and federal statutory rights of juveniles confined there.

The findings led to negotiations between state and federal authorities. The parties reached a settlement agreement made public in late June 2005, filing of the settlement and an associated complaint (to invoke the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland). The settlement describes a number of areas the state obligated itself to improve upon at Cheltenham and Hickey: protection of residents from violence and sexual abuse (via adequate reporting procedures, health care improvements, a use of force policy, staff training, behavior management program implementation, staffing improvements, security system installation (including individual door locks), appropriate and limited use of restraints and seclusion, access to toilets, due process for disciplinary matters, improved intake and classification, and screening of job applicants to ensure employment of persons fit to work with youth), suicide prevention, mental health and medical care, special education, and fire safety.

In the months just following the settlement, the DOJ similarly toured the Baltimore City Juvenile Justice Center ("BCJJC") as part of an investigation, invited by the state, of conditions of confinement at BCJJC. An August 7, 2006, DOJ findings letter also described rights violations, leading to a modification of the original settlement. The May 2007, modification added the BCJJC, so that the state's obligations to improve its juvenile justice housing would extend to all three facilities. The same categories of improvements were set out in the second agreement, with some minor variations between the improvements needed at Cheltenham and Hickey compared with the improvements required at BCJJC. Again, the Department of Justice filed an amended complaint to invoke the court's jurisdiction over the settlement. These complaints relied upon allegations of violation of Section 14141 and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, of non-compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482, and of non-compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. § 794.

The settlements provide processes for compliance reporting and quality assurance, as well as for monitoring of and access to the facilities by the Department of Justice, to enable enforcement proceedings, if necessary. On July 19, 2005, the court (Judge Frederick Motz) placed the case on the court’s inactive docket, with a scheduled dismissal in three years from that date or upon the State’s substantial compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. On June 24, 2008, the parties submitted a Second Amended Settlement Agreement, releasing Cheltenham and Hickey from monitoring and terminating the Agreement with respect to those facilities. On June 26, 2008, the court (Judge Motz) signed a Second Modified Order of Conditional Dismissal, which stated that the interests of the remaining parties would be best served by extending the duration of certain provisions of the Settlement Agreement. In this Order, Judge Motz placed the case on the court’s inactive docket, to be dismissed on June 29, 2009 or earlier if the state reached substantial compliance with the terms of the Second Amended Settlement Agreement.

On June 25, 2009, the parties submitted a Third Amended Settlement Agreement in which the parties agreed that BCJJC improved conditions relating to suicide prevention and special education services sufficiently but still needed monitoring in the area of protection of BCJJC youth from harm by other youth. On June 30, 2009, the court (Judge Motz) approved the Third Amended Settlement and again placed the case on the court’s inactive docket, to be dismissed on June 29, 2011, or earlier if the state reaches substantial compliance with the terms of the Third Amended Settlement Agreement.

On August 19, 2010, the parties determined that the state had fulfilled all of its obligations and Judge Motz ordered that the case be finally dismissed with prejudice.

Mike Fagan - 05/20/2008
Frances Hollander - 02/21/2016


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Due Process
Content of Injunction
Hire
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Monitoring
Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention
Remedial education
Reporting
Training
General
Aggressive behavior
Assault/abuse by residents/inmates/students
Assault/abuse by staff
Classification / placement
Conditions of confinement
Confinement/isolation
Disciplinary procedures
Education
Excessive force
Failure to supervise
Fire safety
Incident/accident reporting & investigations
Informed consent/involuntary medication
Juveniles
Rehabilitation
Restraints : physical
Sanitation / living conditions
Sex w/ staff; sexual harassment by staff
Sexual abuse by residents/inmates
Special education
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Suicide prevention
Medical/Mental Health
Dental care
Medical care, general
Medication, administration of
Mental health care, general
Self-injurious behaviors
Suicide prevention
Plaintiff Type
U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997 et seq.
42 U.S.C. § 14141
Indv. w/ Disab. Educ. Act (IDEA), Educ. of All Handcpd. Children Act , 20 U.S.C. § 1400
Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701
Defendant(s) Baltimore Juvenile Justice Center
Charles H. Hickey, Jr. School
Cheltenham Youth Facility
Maryland Department of Juvenile Services
State of Maryland
Plaintiff Description Attorney General, on behalf of the United States, seeking to enjoin the State of Maryland from depriving youth confined in the Cheltenham Youth Facility in Cheltenham, Maryland.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted Moot
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 2005 - 2010
Case Closing Year 2010
Case Ongoing No
Docket(s)
1:05-cv-01772-JFM (D. Md.) 08/17/2010
JI-MD-0003-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Investigation of the Cheltenham Youth Facility in Cheltenham, Maryland, and the Charles H. Hickey, Jr., School in Baltimore, Maryland 04/09/2004
JI-MD-0003-0001.pdf | Detail
Settlement Agreement 06/29/2005
JI-MD-0003-0004.pdf | Detail
Complaint 06/30/2005
JI-MD-0003-0003.pdf | Detail
Order of Conditional Dismissal 07/19/2005 (D. Md.)
JI-MD-0003-0007.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Investigation of the Baltimore City Juvenile Justice Center in Baltimore, Maryland 08/07/2006
JI-MD-0003-0002.pdf | Detail
Amended Settlement Agreement Between the United States of America and the State of Maryland Regarding Conditions at Three Juvenile Justice Facilities 05/18/2007
JI-MD-0003-0005.pdf | Detail
First Amended Complaint 05/22/2007
JI-MD-0003-0006.pdf | Detail
Second Modified Order of Conditional Dismissal 06/26/2008 (D. Md.)
JI-MD-0003-0008.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Third Modified Order of Conditional Dismissal 06/30/2009 (D. Md.)
JI-MD-0003-0009.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order of Final Dismissal 08/19/2010 (D. Md.)
JI-MD-0003-0010.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Motz, J. Frederick (D. Md.)
JI-MD-0003-0007 | JI-MD-0003-0008 | JI-MD-0003-0009 | JI-MD-0003-0010 | JI-MD-0003-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Acosta, R. Alexander (District of Columbia)
JI-MD-0003-0001
Brown Cutlar, Shanetta Y. (District of Columbia)
JI-MD-0003-0003 | JI-MD-0003-0004 | JI-MD-0003-0006 | JI-MD-0003-9000
Delaney, Joshua (District of Columbia)
JI-MD-0003-0003 | JI-MD-0003-0004 | JI-MD-0003-9000
DeSheilds Minnis, Tarra (Maryland)
JI-MD-0003-0003 | JI-MD-0003-9000
Kim, Wan J. (District of Columbia)
JI-MD-0003-0002 | JI-MD-0003-0006
Loucks, Allen (Maryland)
JI-MD-0003-0003 | JI-MD-0003-0004 | JI-MD-0003-0006 | JI-MD-0003-9000
Rosenstein, Rod J. (Maryland)
JI-MD-0003-0006
Schlozman, Bradley (District of Columbia)
JI-MD-0003-0003 | JI-MD-0003-0004 | JI-MD-0003-9000
Weiss, Daniel H. (District of Columbia)
JI-MD-0003-0003 | JI-MD-0003-0004 | JI-MD-0003-0006 | JI-MD-0003-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Fontaine, Robert R. (Maryland)
JI-MD-0003-0004 | JI-MD-0003-0005 | JI-MD-0003-9000
Nolan, Margaret Ann (Maryland)
JI-MD-0003-9000
Pothier, Karl Aram (Maryland)
JI-MD-0003-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -