On November 21, 2007, three female inmates in South Dakota Women's Prison filed a class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court of South Dakota, alleging that they were denied medication and treatment for their mental illnesses in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments ...
read more >
On November 21, 2007, three female inmates in South Dakota Women's Prison filed a class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court of South Dakota, alleging that they were denied medication and treatment for their mental illnesses in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The plaintiffs alleged that they and other inmates were routinely denied medication that had been prescribed by their treating physicians on the orders of prison staff who were not doctors and not authorized to prescribe medication. Cost was one alleged factor for the medication denial. The plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief, as well class certification.
On October 31, 2008, Judge Charles B. Kornmann granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification of "All individuals who are now or who will be in the future incarcerated at the South Dakota Women's Prison and who are denied or delayed access to medication or medical treatment that has been prescribed by a treating medical doctor . . . based on decisions made by persons who are not themselves medical doctors." 2008 WL 4774895. On Dec. 08, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied the defendants' appeal of the certification decision.
On April 04, 2011, the defendants moved to dismiss for failure to prosecute, which Judge Kornmann denied on June 10, 2011.
On April 17, 2012, Judge Kornmann approved a class action settlement and consent decree. 2012 WL 1339148. The defendants agreed that no prescription medication or dosage would be substituted, changed, increased, reduced or discontinued except under the direction of a qualified physician or other person authorized by law to prescribe medications. The settlement noted that the duration of the agreement would be in accordance with the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. That means the case was terminable by the defendant after a period of two years of enforcement. Each party agreed to bear its own costs and attorney's fees with the plaintiffs' attorney agreeing to donate his time, and the court maintained jurisdiction for the remainder of the decree. The case has been long dormant.
Dan Dalton - 11/30/2007
Jessica Kincaid - 11/17/2013
Emily Kempa - 03/10/2019
compress summary
