On December 7, 2011, plaintiff, a male prisoner, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court of the Middle District of Pennsylvania under Bivens against the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The plaintiff, represented by public interest lawyers, asked the court for compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of himself and an injunction preventing defendants from continuing their unconstitutional housing, recreation, and restraint patterns, practices and policies on behalf of all current and future United States Penitentiary (USP) Lewisburg prisoners. On July 27, 2012, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint against all defendants.

Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that the defendants violated plaintiff's right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution by forcing him to share a cell with a hostile prisoner, which caused a threat of violence, and by placing him in painful restraints that caused injury for prolonged periods on multiple occasions for refusing dangerous cell assignments with hostile prisoners; and that defendants violated his right to due process under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution by depriving him of any meaningful process prior to and during their use of punitive measures against him. Plaintiff claimed that defendants engaged in a pattern, practice, or policy of placing hostile inmates together and putting those who refuse placement in brutal restraints for long periods of time.

In 2008, the Bureau of Prisons created the Special Management Unit (SMU) at USP Lewisburg to serve prisoners who present unique security and management concerns including prisoners who participated in or led group/gang-related activity. Prisoners participate in intake interviews, in part to allow officials to gather information about the prisoners so as to make safe and appropriate placement decisions.

On April 9, 2013, the U.S. District Court (Judge William B. Nealon) granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion to dismiss and declined to certify the class. 2013 WL 1452962. The plaintiff subsequently filed a petition to for leave to appeal the denial of class certification on April 23, 2013 to the Third Circuit, and the docket number 13-8046 was assigned. On October 3, 2014, the U.S. District Court granted an enlargement of time for discovery until after the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issues a decision on Richardson's appeal of his class certification claims, and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has decided that Richardson's appeal will be held pending their decision in Shelton v. Bledsoe. On October 8, 2014, the U.S. District Court issued an order staying the case, pending further order of the court, and ordering the action administratively closed until after the Third Circuit Court of appeals issues a decision on Richardson's appeal of his class certification claims. On July 15, 2016, the Third Circuit reversed and remanded, determining that the class-wide claims for injunctive relief were not moot even though the individual plaintiff no longer had a personal stake in the class action. 829 F.3d 273. The Court of Appeals additionally ordered costs from appellees.

The district court lifted the stay on November 1, 2016 following the remand. The parties filed a joint case management plan on January 20, 2017. Plaintiff moved to certify the class on January 27, 2017. On June 26, 2017, Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson recommended that the court provisionally certify the class. The court denied the motion to certify the class without prejudice on October 17, 2017 because the plaintiff had not introduced any evidence to support the motion for class certification and therefore, the plaintiff had not affirmatively shown compliance with Rule 23's requirements of sufficiently numerous parties and common questions of law or fact. The plaintiff was granted leave to refile the motion for class certification within a reasonable time after discovery was complete. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Susan Schwab on June 6, 2018 for discovery disputes.

On April 12, 2019, in the midst of ongoing discovery, the court ordered the resolution of the final discovery dispute. The court ordered the plaintiff to disclose the names of prisoners who may have information relevant to the claims in this case listed on his privilege log.

On July 10, 2019, the court ordered the plaintiff's motion and its supporting brief for class certification was due by September 30, 2019. The defendant's opposition to the class certification was due by November 18, 2019, and the plaintiff's reply was due by December 9, 2019.

As of October 31, 2019, the case was ongoing.

Julie Singer - 10/15/2014
Elizabeth Heise - 11/06/2018
Emma Himes - 10/31/2019


compress summary