On October 23, 2012, a teenager detained awaiting a parole revocation hearing filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff, represented by public interest counsel, asked the court for a declaration that the policies of the Illinois Prisoner Review Board regarding parole revocation hearings were unconstitutional. They also requested that the Court enjoin the defendant from subjecting juveniles awaiting a parole revocation hearing to these policies. The plaintiff alleged that the Illinois Prisoner Review Board was violating his process rights by depriving him of counsel, not providing a timely hearing, and not allowing him to present evidence at his parole revocation hearing.

Class certification was sought in the complaint, and granted on May 8, 2014.

On July 25, 2014, an amended complaint was filed to include the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice as a defendant.

The parties agreed on a settlement. On August 28, 2014, a consent decree was filed. The decree provided the terms that the Illinois Prisoner Review Board must follow during the parole revocation process, including providing counsel, procedures for presentation of evidence at the hearings, and the time frame for the hearing to take place. The decree states that the parties will agree to a third party monitor who will monitor the Illinois Prisoner Review Board's compliance with the decree for 18 months.

Several months later, on Feb. 4, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the consent decree, arguing that the defendants "refused to provide the Plaintiffs
with documents necessary for Plaintiffs to evaluate the Defendants’ compliance with the Decree." They subsequently withdrew their motion on Apr. 2, 2015 because they received the information and documents they sought, and the court granted the motion.

The monitor proceeded to file numerous reports over the next several years. On Feb. 17, 2016, three monitor's reports were filed for three of the past quarters. Each report indicated that defendants were making progress toward complying with the consent decree, but that they were still not fully compliant. Two more such reports were filed on Sept. 19, 2016, indicating that "the spirit of the MH Consent Decree is being fulfilled and Defendants are in substantial compliance" as of Sept. 2016. The report also indicated that further monitoring is necessary to ensure that administration changes and budget issues do not threaten continued compliance. On Apr. 26, 2017, two more reports were filed articulating the same concern for ensuring that substantial compliance will be lasting. The most recent report was filed on Aug. 14, 2017, and it asserted that there is still substantial compliance, but the risk exists that certain individual cases may not be compliant and also the defendants are not complying with payment of fees to the monitor and youth attorneys.

Steve Vnuk - 10/02/2014
Virginia Weeks - 09/27/2017


compress summary