On April 2, 2012, ten prisoners at the Orleans Parish Prison (OPP) -- the New Orleans jail (NOJ) -- brought this class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against the Orleans Parish Sheriff, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs, represented by the Southern Poverty Law Center, asked for both declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that they suffered from abusive and unconstitutional treatment while confined at the NOJ. The case was assigned to Judge Lance M. Africk and Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan.
The complaint alleged that the NOJ imposed endemic and egregious constitutional violations on its prisoners, detailing an incredible level of violence within the facility, both at the hands of staff and prisoners. It alleged that officials handled prisoners with mental health issues in an inhumane manner, including withholding medication from new inmates and taking inadequate steps to safeguard the lives of suicidal prisoners. The plaintiffs also alleged that the NOJ was inadequately staffed and supervised.
Prior to the filing of the lawsuit, the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division had opened an investigation into conditions of confinement at the NOJ, filing a notice of investigation in 2008 and making formal public findings of egregiously dangerous conditions on September 11, 2009. The DOJ findings letter had, like the complaint in this lawsuit, detailed widespread excessive force and failures to protect prisoners, inadequate medical and mental health care, inadequate suicide prevention, and a dangerous physical plant. Just after this lawsuit was filed, the Justice Department sent an additional findings letter, setting out a list of deficiencies that necessitated emergency measures to address them.
In September 2012, the US, with the consent of the parties, intervened in this case under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Title VI claim was that the NOJ discriminated against Latino prisoners in failing to provide necessary language services to prisoners with limited English proficiency. The Sheriff then filed a third-party complaint against the City of New Orleans, alleging that NOJ deficiencies were caused by the City's refusal to provide adequate funding.
In December 2012, the Sheriff, the private plaintiffs, and the DOJ reached a settlement. In addition to setting out substantive terms about improved conditions, and provisions for monitoring and enforcement, the proposed consent judgment set forth a funding process: it required the court to "determine the initial funding needed to ensure constitutional conditions of confinement at OPP, in accordance with the terms of this Agreement," at a "funding trial" in which the City would participate.
The City of New Orleans, however, objected to the settlement's expansive terms, which it argued far exceeded the constitutional minimum requirements, in violation of its rights and the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The PLRA disallows any federal court enforceable jail or prison decree that isn't narrowly tailored to cure ongoing constitutional violations. The City pointed out that it would be required to fund the millions of dollars (perhaps as much as $35 million) the settlement would cost. Because it had just entered into an extremely expensive settlement of its own with the DOJ Civil Rights Division (to reform the scandal-ridden New Orleans Police Department), the City complained money for this settlement was simply unavailable. (This case, United States v. New Orleans, is in this Clearinghouse as
PN-LA-0001).
After briefing, Judge Africk on January 22, 2013, granted preliminary approval of the settlement and scheduled a fairness hearing, at which he would examine it more thoroughly. In the months leading up to the fairness hearing, the City sought appointment of a receiver to run the NOJ, arguing that what was needed was not additional money but rather a change in control; the City blamed poor conditions on the Sheriff and his management.
The fairness hearing took four days, beginning April 1, 2013, with a good deal of additional briefing and discussion following. On June 6, 2013, Judge Africk rejected the City's arguments in a 103 page ruling, pointing out that elected Sheriffs frequently settle cases on their county or City's dime. He granted the motion for the consent judgment and the class certification, entering the proposed judgment. Judge Africk ruled that the NOJ was indeed imposing systemically unconstitutional conditions on its prisoners, describing a horrifying level of violence, untreated illness, and dysfunction.
The consent judgment was a comprehensive reform document, requiring wholesale changes to NOJ operations, and a monitor to assist/ensure that changes happen. The parties agreed to new policies regarding protection from harm, mental health care, medical care, sanitation and environmental conditions, fire and life safety; language assistance, and youthful prisoners. Specific provisions of the agreement included improved documentation of abuse by prisoners and staff; review of prison conditions and officials, new policies regarding the use of force against prisoners, a mandated separation of teenaged and adult prisoners, and a revised staffing plan to ensure that enough are officers are provided to protect prisoners. The injunction had no set end date; it was to be lifted after the NOJ has remained in substantial compliance with the settlement agreement for a period of two years. It was court-enforceable by the plaintiffs and the US.
The funding hearing was held in August 2013. On September 3, 2013, Judge Africk dismissed the City's motion to appoint a receiver without prejudice to the City's right to re-urge its motion at a later date. On September 9, 2013, Judge Africk appointed Susan W. McCampbell as the lead monitor pursuant to the consent judgment, as well as sub-monitors. On September 12, 2013, Judge Africk also ordered the Sheriff and the City to each provide $105,000 for the purpose of paying the monitoring costs through the end of the year.
On October 10, 2013, Judge Africk approved the consent judgment on attorneys' fees. The Sheriff had to pay $900,000 in full and final settlement of all fees and costs.
On October 21, 2013, Judge Africk approved the settlement agreed to by all parties regarding the issue of funding between the Sheriff and the City. The City agreed to pay $1.8 million in interim funding for the fiscal year of 2013. The City did not agree to pay any specific level of funding for 2014 and beyond. On April 17, 2014, Judge Africk granted the joint motion for entry of a settlement agreement detailing more of the changes the Sheriff was to make and the uses for the funds provided by the City, including funds that had not yet been allocated. On Aug. 13, 2014, the court approved the Sheriff's proposal for short-term housing of inmates with acute and subacute mental health and ordered the City to pay for it.
Monitoring continued over the subsequent years, as did litigation concerning compliance as the parties worked out the details within the settlement framework.
On April 25, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to show cause why the defendants should not be held in contempt. The plaintiffs argued that, in light of the assessments of appointed monitors "about the Sheriff’s inability to achieve compliance and OPSO’s leadership shortcomings," the court should appoint a receiver to implement the reforms needed for compliance at the Orleans Paris Jail. The parties stipulated to the following agreement on June 21, 2016: (1) the Sheriff would appoint an independent jail compliance director to implement the consent judgment, (2) provisions for transparency and information sharing as implementation progressed, (3) the monitor's continued evaluative role, and (4) specific duties of the compliance director.
On Dec. 2, 2016, the independent compliance director submitted a draft of the initial remedial action plan. He submitted his revised action plan a month later, as well as a supplemental action plan. Broadly, the director's action plan included strategies to (1) decrease the number of inmate and staff assaults, (2) accomplish sustainable hiring measures, (3) maintain a "positive, professionalized" jail staff culture, (4) ensure effective staff presence and deployment throughout the jail, (5) promote timely completion of critical policies and procedures related to compliance, (6) ensure staff are adequately trained, (7) ensure enforcement of direct supervision throughout the jail, (8) prevent undue reliance on cell confinement or lockdown, (9) timely return inmates housed outside of Orleans Parish, (10) ensure adequate support for inmates placed on suicide precautions, (11) reduce incidents of suicide and self-harm, (12) thorough and fair investigation of inmate grievances and incidents of harm, (13) ensure appropriate and recorded use of force by staff, (14) maintain acceptable sanitation and environmental conditions, (15) ensure the disciplinary system is effective and affords inmates due process, (16) ensure the implementation of budget control measures and competition in procurement, (17) ensure effective staffing.
Remediation and monitoring occurred over the next year. On January 18, 2018, the monitor submitted the eighth report to the court, informing the court that safety, medical and mental health care, and environmental conditions of inmates had marginally improved at both the Orleans Justice Center and the Temporary Detention Center. On July 27, 2018, the Jail Compliance Director filed a motion to clarify the stipulated order to determine whether the Jail Compliance Director "shares the absolute judicial immunity of the Court." Another report was submitted on August 29, 2018, reporting marginal improvement compared to the January report. The case is ongoing. The docket was last updated on September 6, 2018.
Jonathan Forman - 07/05/2013
Jessica Kincaid - 07/14/2014
Virginia Weeks - 12/01/2017
Jake Parker - 07/18/2018
compress summary
