Case: Moorhead v. Lane

2:86-cv-02020 | U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois

Filed Date: Jan. 21, 1986

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This case was a civil rights class action against Illinois prison officials. It alleged discrimination against incarcerated women in housing, training, and pay. It culminated in a consent decree which required the construction of an all-women minimum-security prison and a “good faith” effort to reform education and vocational programs for women. Six incarcerated women filed a class action complaint on January 21, 1986, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois. Under 42 U.…

This case was a civil rights class action against Illinois prison officials. It alleged discrimination against incarcerated women in housing, training, and pay. It culminated in a consent decree which required the construction of an all-women minimum-security prison and a “good faith” effort to reform education and vocational programs for women.

Six incarcerated women filed a class action complaint on January 21, 1986, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, they sought declaratory and injunctive relief for violations of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Plaintiffs were represented by the ACLU of Illinois and private counsel. Defendants were two officials from the Illinois Department of Corrections. Judge Harold A. Baker was assigned to the case.

As the available documents in this case were limited, some additional information was gathered from a 1993 publication from the ACLU’s National Prison Project, a 1994 article from the Chicago Tribune, and a 2009 article from the Daily Journal.

Their case had three main allegations:

  1. Illinois did not have a women-only minimum-security prison at the time of filing. As such, many incarcerated women were forced to complete their sentences at the maximum-security Dwight Correctional Center, the only all-women prison in the state. This subjected many incarcerated women to heightened risks, surveillance, and controls that were disproportionate to their sentences. Additionally, Illinois’ prisons were becoming increasingly overcrowded as the state legislature was actively boosting sentences and creating new classes of crime.
  2. Illinois failed to provide incarcerated women with adequate vocational or educational programs. Male inmates were offered classes on computers, in mechanics, or electrical work. In comparison, women inmates were limited to classes such as sewing, cosmetology, and ““ridiculous secretarial classes on manual typewriters that didn't even work.” Plaintiffs argued that these courses failed to prepare them for the workforce.
  3. Incarcerated males were unfairly paid more than female inmates for the same or similar jobs.

On April 29, 1989, the court issued an order in response to a discovery dispute. Defendants sought to compel plaintiffs to answer questions on discussions they had with two law clerks employed at the prison. Plaintiffs argued that attorney-client privilege applied as the law clerks effectively served as “jailhouse attorn[ies].” However, the court ultimately concluded that privilege did not apply as the law clerks were not licensed attorneys. 125 F.R.D. 680.

On March 25, 1991, both sides moved for preliminary approval of a consent decree. This approval was granted two days later. On May 1, 1991, the consent decree was formally entered, and the case was dismissed. This decree included the following terms:

  1. Illinois was required to build an all-women minimum-security prison by 1993. This facility was required to have at least 200 beds.
  2. Illinois was required to make a “good faith” effort to offer more programs to women. This would include sending all 1,230 women incarcerated in the state prison system a questionnaire asking for potential vocational and educational programs.
  3. Illinois would pay $20,000 in legal fees to the plaintiffs’ lawyers. However, plaintiffs stated that they had paid over $200,000 in legal fees in the case at that time.
  4. Plaintiffs would drop allegations concerning unfair payment.
  5. The court would monitor progress until at least June 30, 1994.

The consent decree led to the construction of the all-women Kankakee Minimum Security Unit in 1991. This facility closed in May 2011 as the result of large state budget cuts. At the time, there was no other minimum security facility for women. An ACLU official stated that it was unclear whether this violated the 1991 consent decree as it "didn't require any particular prison to stay open[.]" However, as of January 2023, the Decatur Correctional Center was designated as a minimum security facility for women.

As of January 28, 2023, no further actions have occurred in this case except for two third-party requests for documents.

Summary Authors

Eric Gripp (1/20/2023)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/9213202/parties/high-v-lane/


Judge(s)

Baker, Harold Albert (Illinois)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Epstein, Bennett L. (Illinois)

Grossman, Harvey (Illinois)

Kennedy, John Francis (Illinois)

Nijman, Jennifer T. (Illinois)

Attorney for Defendant

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:86-cv-02020

Docket [PACER]

Oct. 1, 2013

Oct. 1, 2013

Docket

2:86-cv-02020

Opinion

April 29, 1989

April 29, 1989

Order/Opinion

125 F.R.D. 125

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/9213202/high-v-lane/

Last updated March 19, 2024, 3:05 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
91

JOINT MOTION by plaintiff(s), defendant(s), to stay disc sche (KW, ilcd) (Entered: 12/27/1989)

Dec. 21, 1989

Dec. 21, 1989

PACER

MINUTE-ENTRY: by Chief Judge Harold A. Baker; Appr for pla thru Maria Woltjen. Appr for dfts thru Susan O'Leary & Marita Sullivan. Settlement discussion being had. Status hearing held 1:30 1/24/90 Status hearing set 8:45 3/1/90 (KW, ilcd)

Jan. 24, 1990

Jan. 24, 1990

PACER

MINUTE-ENTRY: by Chief Judge Harold A. Baker Status hearing held 8:45 3/1/90 Appr for plas thru Maria Woltjen & John Kennedy; Appr for dfts thru Marita Sullivan & Susan O'Leary. Status hearing set 9:00 5/3/90 Parties talking settlement. (KW, ilcd)

March 1, 1990

March 1, 1990

PACER

MINUTE-ENTRY: by Chief Judge Harold A. Baker ; Status hearing vacated 9:00 5/3/90, ; Status hearing reset 9:00 6/4/90 (cc: all counsel) (KW, ilcd)

May 2, 1990

May 2, 1990

PACER

MINUTE-ENTRY: by Chief Judge Harold A. Baker; Appr for plas thru Maria Woltjen, John Kennedy & Jennifer Nijman. Appr for dfts thru Susan O'Leary & Marita Sullivan. Status hearing set by conf call 9:00 8/13/90 (KW, ilcd)

June 4, 1990

June 4, 1990

PACER

MINUTE-ENTRY: Status by tcc held ( app of pltfs thru Jennifer Nyman; app of defts thru Susan O'Leary & Marita Sullivan ) by Chief Judge Harold A. Baker ;further status hearing set 8:45 9/6/90 by tcc. Settlement talks are still in progress. (MB, ilcd)

Aug. 13, 1990

Aug. 13, 1990

PACER

MINUTE-ENTRY: by Chief Judge Harold A. Baker ; Status hearing held 8:45 9/6/90, Appr for plas thru Maria Woltjen. Appr for dfts thru Marita Sullivan. Parties talking settlement. ; Status hearing set by conf call 8:45 10/16/90 finding the motion to stay disc sche [91-1] moot. (cc: all counsel) (KW, ilcd)

Sept. 6, 1990

Sept. 6, 1990

PACER

MINUTE-ENTRY: by Chief Judge Harold A. Baker ; Status hearing held 8:45 10/16/90 Appr for plas thru Maria Woltjen. Appr for dfts thru Maria Sullivan. Settlement discussion. Settlement close. Further Status hearing set by conf call 9:00 11/15/90 (KW, ilcd)

Oct. 16, 1990

Oct. 16, 1990

PACER

MINUTE-ENTRY: by Chief Judge Harold A. Baker ; Status hearing held 9:00 11/15/90 Appr for plas thru Maria Woltjen. Appr for dfts thru Susan O'Leary & Marita Sullivan. Parties discuss decree of case. ; Status hearing set by personal appearance 1:30 1/16/91, in Danville. (KW, ilcd)

Nov. 15, 1990

Nov. 15, 1990

PACER

MINUTE-ENTRY: by Chief Judge Harold A. Baker; Hearing on 1/16/91, at 1:30 p.m., has been changed from personal appearance to conf call. Ms. Woltgen, pla's atty will notify dfts' atty. (cc: all counsel) (KW, ilcd)

Jan. 8, 1991

Jan. 8, 1991

PACER

MINUTE-ENTRY: by Chief Judge Harold A. Baker; Appr for plas thru Benjamin Wolf. Appr for dfts thru Marita Sullivan & Susan O'Leary. Status hearing held 1:30 1/16/91 Parties are waiting settlement approval. ; Status hearing set by conf call 8:45 2/21/91 (KW, ilcd)

Jan. 16, 1991

Jan. 16, 1991

PACER

MINUTE-ENTRY: by Chief Judge Harold A. Baker ; Status hearing held 8:45 2/21/91 Appr for plas thru Maria Woltjen. Appr for dfts thru Susan O'Leary & Marita Sullivan. Settlement still in progress. Papers due by 3/7/91. Survey to be on file by 3/21/91. Ntc of settlement to be given by parties for 5/1/91, conf call. Status hearing set by conf call 9:00 5/1/91 (KW, ilcd)

Feb. 21, 1991

Feb. 21, 1991

PACER
92

JOINT MOTION by plaintiff(s), defendant(s) for preliminary approval of the consent decree (KW, ilcd) (Entered: 03/25/1991)

March 25, 1991

March 25, 1991

PACER
93

STIPULATION of fee agreement filed by parties (KW, ilcd) (Entered: 03/25/1991)

March 25, 1991

March 25, 1991

PACER

MINUTE-ENTRY: by Chief Judge Harold A. Baker; St hrg held. Appr for plas thru Maria Woltjen. Appr for dfts thru Susan O'Leary & Martia Sullivan. Prel approval of the class action hrg approved. Order entered. (KW, ilcd)

March 27, 1991

March 27, 1991

PACER
94

ORDER by Chief Judge Harold A. Baker granting motion for preliminary approval of the consent decree [92-1] (cc: all counsel) (KW, ilcd) (Entered: 03/27/1991)

March 27, 1991

March 27, 1991

PACER

MINUTE-ENTRY: by Chief Judge Harold A. Baker ; Status hearing held 9:00 5/1/91 Appr for plas thru Maria Woltjen. Appr for dfts thru Susan O'Leary & Marita Sullivan. (KW, ilcd)

May 1, 1991

May 1, 1991

PACER
95

ORDER by Chief Judge Harold A. Baker; CONSENT DEGREE, entered. See written consent degree. to dismiss case (cc: all counsel) (KW, ilcd) (Entered: 05/08/1991)

May 1, 1991

May 1, 1991

PACER
96

JUDGMENT in a civil case entered pursuant to Consent Decree entered on 5/1/91. (cc: all counsel) (KW, ilcd) (Entered: 05/08/1991)

May 8, 1991

May 8, 1991

PACER
97

NOTICE by plaintiff Margaret Moorhead, plaintiff Ann Walters, plaintiff Ruthe Carbona of change of address of atty Benjamin S. Wolf of the Roger Baldwin Fdtn. of ACLU (MB, ilcd) (Entered: 08/14/1992)

Aug. 13, 1992

Aug. 13, 1992

PACER

Remark - File sent to FRC, Chicago in Aug. 1995 - Accession No 021 95 0160 Box 1 of 20, Location 226992-227011 SAN (SLJ, ilcd) Modified on 10/26/1995

Oct. 25, 1995

Oct. 25, 1995

PACER
98

Letter from Francis Smith requesting a copy of the consent decree. (KW, ilcd) (Entered: 08/01/2011)

Aug. 1, 2011

Aug. 1, 2011

RECAP
99

Letter to Mr. Smith concerning the fee of $45.00 to retrieve the file. (KW, ilcd) (Entered: 08/01/2011)

Aug. 1, 2011

Aug. 1, 2011

PACER
100

Letter from Walter Jefferson (KM, ilcd) (Entered: 09/27/2013)

Sept. 27, 2013

Sept. 27, 2013

PACER
101

Letter from Clerk to Walter Jefferson in response to his letter 100 . (KM, ilcd) (Entered: 10/01/2013)

Oct. 1, 2013

Oct. 1, 2013

PACER
101

Letter from Clerk to Walter Jefferson in response to his letter 100 . (KM, ilcd) (Entered: 10/01/2013)

Oct. 1, 2013

Oct. 1, 2013

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Illinois

Case Type(s):

Prison Conditions

Key Dates

Filing Date: Jan. 21, 1986

Case Ongoing: Perhaps, but long-dormant

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Six incarcerated women who were housed at the Illinois run Dwight Correctional Center.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

ACLU Affiliates (any)

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Illinois Department of Corrections (Springfield, Sangamon), State

Defendant Type(s):

Corrections

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Equal Protection

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: $20,000

Content of Injunction:

Reasonable Accommodation

Goals (e.g., for hiring, admissions)

Issues

General:

Conditions of confinement

Education

Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:

Placement in detention facilities

Discrimination-area:

Disparate Treatment

Accommodation / Leave

Pay / Benefits

Training

Discrimination-basis:

Sex discrimination

Affected Sex or Gender:

Female

Type of Facility:

Government-run