On December 14, 2006, two female former inmates of the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) in Washington, D.C. filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs, represented by public interest counsel, sought damages for ...
read more >
On December 14, 2006, two female former inmates of the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) in Washington, D.C. filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs, represented by public interest counsel, sought damages for violations of their constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Ninth Amendments to the Constitution. Plaintiffs claimed that they were each sexually assaulted by CTF staff and that CTF failed to protect their safety through negligent hiring practices, inadequate safety training, ineffective assault reporting mechanisms, and failure to enforce policies to minimize the risk of sexual assaults, including supervision of staff-inmate interaction and ineffective investigative and disciplinary action in response to allegations of sexual assault.
On April 9, 2002, one of the plaintiffs was being escorted back from a court hearing when she alleged she was taken by a corrections officer to a staff bathroom, where he raped and sexually assaulted her. A few days later, the same corrections officer repeated his rape and assault. The officer later attempted to touch the plaintiff in a sexual manner, but the plaintiff was able to fend off his advances. Over the subsequent period, the plaintiff suffered panic attacks, but she was not provided with treatment and she had difficulty getting her complaint investigated. The male officer was eventually terminated for an unrelated incident. On December 25, 2003, the second plaintiff was taken by a male corrections officer to a broom closet, where he raped and sexually assaulted her. The plaintiff called the DC Dept. of Corrections sexual misconduct hotline and an investigation was begun. When the officer was placed on paid suspension, the allegations became common knowledge among the officers, which resulted in rumors and attempts to determine the plaintiff's identity. The officer resigned before the investigation was completed.
The plaintiffs entered a motion on December 14, 2006 to proceed under pseudonyms, which was initially granted but eventually denied on November 16, 2007 by Judge Ellen Huvelle. After some other discovery disputes, the parties reached a closed settlement on October 21, 2008. Jesse Stricklan - 03/31/2014