On October 15, 2013, seven Michigan prisoners under the age of 18 confined in adult correctional institutions filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Michigan. The plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 18 U.S.C. § 1591 against the Michigan Department of Corrections, the Governor of Michigan, and a number of named correctional officers and administrators. Represented by private counsel, plaintiffs alleged that they were sexually assaulted or harassed by adult prisoners and guards while confined in adult correctional institutions run by the Michigan Department of Corrections. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the policy and practice of placing juveniles in adult prisons without taking adequate steps to protect them from known harm constitutes deliberate indifference to their safety in violation of rights guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and various international treaties. The complaint sought injunctive and declaratory relief as well as monetary damages.

On February 28, 2014, the State moved for summary judgment, claiming that minor prisoners were no longer housed with adults and that adult housing was physically separate from prisoners who are under 18 years of age. On May 28, 2014, District Court Judge Robert H. Cleland granted in part and denied in part that motion. The opinion held that the plaintiffs did have standing, despite no longer being underage, as standing is determined at the time the complaint is filed. Furthermore, the court held that, although the defendants had abandoned the practice of housing minors with adults, the fact remained that the practice was still permissible pursuant to state law, and, as such, subject to restart. However, the court did grant summary judgment on the plaintiffs' claims under the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and customary international law. The court dismissed these claims because none of the treaties created an independently enforceable right and because there was no peremptory norm of international law against housing youth and adults together in correctional institutions. 2014 WL 2207136 (E.D. Mich. May 28, 2014).

In May 2015, the defendants moved for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' remaining for a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. On February 8, 2016, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment for the claims by all of the named plaintiffs except for John Doe 3 who did exhaust his administrative remedies. 2016 WL 465496 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 8, 2016).

As of February 26, 2016, litigation is ongoing.

Richard Jolly - 11/05/2014
Jessica Kincaid - 02/26/2016


compress summary