University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Does v. Michigan Department of Corrections PC-MI-0039
Docket / Court 13-001196-CZ ( State Court )
State/Territory Michigan
Case Type(s) Prison Conditions
Special Collection Solitary confinement
Case Summary
On December 9, 2013, a group of unidentified minors who were incarcerated in Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) adult prisons filed this putative class action lawsuit against the MDOC in the Michigan Circuit Court for the County of Washtenaw. Represented by attorneys from a civil rights law ... read more >
On December 9, 2013, a group of unidentified minors who were incarcerated in Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) adult prisons filed this putative class action lawsuit against the MDOC in the Michigan Circuit Court for the County of Washtenaw. Represented by attorneys from a civil rights law firm, the plaintiffs brought this action under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), MCL 37.2301 et seq. The plaintiffs alleged that the MDOC placed at least 500 minors in the three years leading up to this lawsuit in adult prisons without adequate supervision—despite the known safety risks—and as a result these minors had been subjected to physical and sexual violence. The plaintiffs claimed that the MDOC's policies violated their rights under the ELCRA by creating a sexually hostile environment, and requested monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

In addition to this lawsuit, the plaintiffs filed a complaint arising out of the occurrence alleged here in the Eastern District of Michigan. That suit is available here.

On February 18, 2014, the MDOC moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to comply with MCL 600.5507(2), a provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act requiring that a prisoner filing a lawsuit concerning prison conditions disclose the number of civil actions and appeals the prisoner previously filed. Because the plaintiffs had made insufficient disclosures, the MDOC argued the case should be dismissed under MCL 600.5507(3). The plaintiffs argued that MCL 600.5507 only applied to complaints filed on behalf of indigent prisoners, which did not include the prisoners in this case. Judge Carol Kuhnke denied the motion on March 13.

On March 7, 2014, the plaintiffs moved for class certification. Judge Kuhnke granted the motion on October 30, after extensive discovery, and the defendants appealed. On January 16, 2015, the Court of Appeals denied leave. However, the Michigan Supreme Court remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration. 859 N.W.2d 712 (2015).

Meanwhile, the MDOC again moved for summary judgment on March 25, 2014, this time arguing that that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because the plain language of the ELCRA, as amended in 1999, provided that "public service" did not include a state or county correctional facility with respect to prisoners. ELCRA provided that person shall not "(a) Deny an individual the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or public service because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, or marital status." MCL 37.2302(a). But in its definition, the statute stated that "public service does not include a state or county correctional facility with respect to actions and decisions regarding an individual serving a sentence of imprisonment." MCL 37.2301(b).

The plaintiffs argued that this amendment to the ELCRA was unconstitutional under the equal protection clauses of the Michigan and U.S. Constitutions. Judge Kuhnke heard oral arguments regarding this motion on April 23, and on April 30 entered an order denying the motion of summary judgment. Judge Kuhnke held that the amendment was indeed unconstitutional in that it deprived prisoners of equal protection under the law. The MDOC then appealed both denials of summary judgment.

On August 25, 2015, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued an opinion written by Judge Riordan that held the trial court had erred in both denials of summary judgment for the MDOC. The Court of Appeals held that this suit should have been dismissed pursuant to MCL 600.5507(3) because the plaintiffs had failed to disclose sufficiently as required by MCL 600.5507(2). In addition, the Court of Appeals found that the 1999 amendment to the ELCRA was not unconstitutional and was rationally related to a legitimate government interest in compliance with equal protection principles. As such, the plaintiffs were precluded from bringing suit under the ELCRA. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court to enter summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Judge Beckering dissented. 878 N.W.2d 293 (2015). The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal to the state supreme court. Though it denied leave to appeal on March 30, 2016, the Michigan Supreme Court vacated the equal protection holding from the Court of Appeals decision because “[i]n light of the Court of Appeals ruling that plaintiffs’ complaint should be dismissed under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act . . . it was unnecessary to resolve the remaining issues.” 876 N.W.2d 570 (2016). These decisions mooted the appeal concerning class certification. 2016 WL 3365114.

While litigating the appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, the plaintiffs moved to file an amended complaint in September 2015 in order to address the deficiencies the Court of Appeals noted. Judge Kuhnke granted the motion on October 1, and the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on October 2. The MDOC filed for summary judgment for this new complaint on October 8. The court granted in part and denied in part summary judgment on March 30, 2016. The MDOC appealed once again, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order on September 14.

On October 4, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to vacate judgment and reinstate their ELCRA claims and motion for rehearing and/or reconsideration. The same day, the court consolidated this case with another case pending before the court, No. 15­-1006-­CZ. Meanwhile, the MDOC appealed the appellate court's September 14 decision to the state Supreme Court, but the appeal was denied on April 4, 2017. 891 N.W.2d 492.

The trial court heard oral arguments on the remaining issues—the ELCRA claim and a government immunity claim—on October 11, 2017. The trial court decided in October 2017 that the it was unconstitutional for the amendment to prohibit individuals serving a sentence of imprisonment from bringing actions under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA). It also concluded that governmental immunity does not apply to prisoners' civil-rights actions. The defendants appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals.

On March 27, 2018, the Court of Appeals adopted Judge Beckering's dissent from the court's August 25, 2015 decision. That opinion had explained that the Michigan Constitution's Article I, § 2 did not grant the legislature the authority to exclude a class of individuals from the protections of ELCRA. The court therefore concluded that the dissent's analysis had been correct: the 1999 amendment had violated the Michigan Constitution. The court affirmed the trial court's decision and held that the legislature must craft laws that protect all citizens. The court also affirmed that the governmental immunity does not apply to ELCRA claims. 917 N.W.2d 730. The Michigan Supreme Court denied the defendant's application for leave to appeal.

Back in the state trial court, the cases proceeded to trial and through multiple discovery issues. The defendant tried to decertify the plaintiff's class or, in the alternative, bifurcate classwide liability into separate trials, but the Court denied on the motion on May 2, 2019. The defendant then moved for summary judgment again, but the Court denied this motion on August 29, 2019, after determining that multiple issues of material fact were in dispute. The Court found that one class member's exhaustion of administrative remedies satisfied the requirement for the entire class, and denied summary judgment because there was an issue of material fact as to whether any plaintiff had exhausted their administrative remedies. Additionally, the Court found that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to what can cause a physical injury. With regards to this case, Judge Kuhnke found that verbal abuse causing brain injury, or emotional distress that causes sleep loss or vomiting, can satisfy the PLRA's physical injury requirement. Finally, Judge Kuhnke found a genuine issue of material fact pertaining to the ELCRA and whether the defendants had received constructive notice that youth were being targeted and sexually abused.

On February 26, 2020, the Court approved a proposed preliminary settlement agreement. The final class included those persons incarcerated in an MDOC facility while under the age of 18 any time between October 15, 2010 and February 24, 2020. The settlement resolved this case and four others: Docket 15-001006-CZ in Michigan's 22nd Circuit Court; Docket 16-cv-13765 in the Eastern District of Michigan; 2:17-cv-11181 in the Eastern District of Michigan; and 13-cv-14356 in the Eastern District of Michigan (additional information on this case can be found at Does v. Michigan Department of Corrections in the Clearinghouse).

As part of the settlement, the MDOC agreed to pay $80,000,000 to an escrow fund in installments, with the final payment to be made by October 15, 2022. The settlement also required the MDOC to issue a "Youthful Offender Policy Directive," which requires any observation or report of a Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) violation to be reported to the PREA Coordinator. The settlement noted that the MDOC would provide enhanced training on youth development, and also provide counseling services for the plaintiffs. The MDOC also agreed to revise its PREA grievance process to remove the requirement that a prisoner exhaust their administrative remedies.

Class counsel issued an allocation plan to disburse the $80,000,000. The plan stated that eligible claimants would be divided into four compensation pools based on the nature of their claims, their injuries, and the legal risks involved in proceeding with the litigation. Pool 1 was created to compensate class members who suffered at least one sexual assault involving penetration by an adult prisoner or MDOC Staff member, and $30,000,000 was set aside for these claimants. Pool 2 was set to comprise of class members who suffered solitary confinement; "solitary confinement" was defined as confinement in a cell alone for at least 23 hours a day regardless of the reason. $4,000,000 was set aside for Pool 2. Pool 3 was created for class members who were sexually assaulted without penetration by an adult prisoner, probationer, or MDOC staff member. Pool 3 was allocated $16,000,000. Finally, $1,000,000 was set aside for Pool 4, which compensated class members subjected to use of force by an MDOC staff member.

The allocation plan also stipulated that class members may be eligible to receive enhancement awards if they provided substantial assistance to class counsel during litigation; $1,666,667 was set aside for this purpose. A residual claim fund was also established in case of variance in the forecasted number of claimants.

The Court also approved attorneys' fees of $1,000,000. Because the docket lists a few remaining hearings to finalize the settlement agreement, as of April 12, 2020, this case remains ongoing.

John He - 11/06/2015
Virginia Weeks - 09/20/2017
Chelsea Rinnig - 03/30/2019
Justin Hill - 04/13/2020


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Male
Constitutional Clause
Equal Protection
Defendant-type
Corrections
Jurisdiction-wide
Discrimination-basis
Age discrimination
General
Assault/abuse by residents/inmates/students
Assault/abuse by staff
Classification / placement
Conditions of confinement
Counseling
Disciplinary segregation
Excessive force
Failure to supervise
Juveniles
Over/Unlawful Detention
Prison Rape Elimination Act
Sex w/ staff; sexual harassment by staff
Sexual abuse by residents/inmates
Solitary confinement/Supermax (conditions or process)
Youth / Adult separation
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action State law
Defendant(s) Michigan Department of Corrections
Plaintiff Description A group of unidentified minors who were incarcerated in Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) adult prisons
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Attorneys fees
Damages
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Filed 12/09/2013
Case Ongoing Yes
Case Listing PC-MI-0033 : Does v. Michigan Department of Corrections (E.D. Mich.)
PC-MI-0044 : Doe v. Anderson (E.D. Mich.)
JI-MI-0005 : DOE v. Michigan Department of Corrections (E.D. Mich.)
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  Doe v. MDOC Settlement Website
Date: 2020
(The Law Offices of Deborah Labelle; Pitt, McGehee, Palmers & Rivers; Salvatore, Prescott, Porter & Porter; Soble, Rowe & Krichbaum)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Similar accounts in suit over alleged teen prison rapes pose challenge to state's defense
The Bridge
Date: Apr. 14, 2015
By: Ted Roelofs (The Bridge)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Civil Rights Injunctions Over Time: A Case Study of Jail and Prison Court Orders
N.Y.U. Law Review
Date: May 2006
By: Margo Schlanger (Washington University Faculty)
Citation: 81 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 550 (2006)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Judicial Policy Making and the Modern State: How the Courts Reformed America's Prisons
Book
Date: Jan. 1, 1998
By: Malcolm M. Feeley & Edward Rubin (UC Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law & Vanderbilt School of Law Faculty Faculty)
Citation: (1998)
[ Detail ]

Docket(s)
13-001196-CZ (State Trial Court)
PC-MI-0039-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/03/2020
Source: State Court Website
General Documents
Complaint
PC-MI-0039-0001.pdf | External Link | Detail
Date: 12/09/2013
Source: Plaintiffs' counsel
Order Denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Disposition Filed Under MCR 2.116(C)(8)
PC-MI-0039-0005.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/30/2014
Source: Plaintiffs' counsel
Plaintiffs/Appellees' Response to Defendants/Appellants' Brief on Leave in Case No. 321756
PC-MI-0039-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/21/2015
Source: Plaintiffs' counsel
[Transcript, Including Order] Hearing: Defendants' Motion for Summary Disposition
PC-MI-0039-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/23/2015
Source: Plaintiffs' counsel
[Opinion of Michigan Court of Appeals] (878 N.W.2d 293)
PC-MI-0039-0006.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | External Link | Detail
Date: 08/25/2015
Source: State Court Website
Opinion of Michigan Court of Appeals (917 N.W.2d 730)
PC-MI-0039-0007.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 03/27/2018
Source: State Court Website
Class Settlement Agreement
PC-MI-0039-0008.pdf | External Link | Detail
Date: 02/26/2020
Source: State Court Website
show all people docs
Judges Beckering, Jane M (State Appellate Court) show/hide docs
PC-MI-0039-0006
Donofrio, Pat M. (State Appellate Court) show/hide docs
PC-MI-0039-0006
Kelly, Kirsten Frank (State Appellate Court) show/hide docs
PC-MI-0039-0007
Kuhnke, Carol (State Trial Court) show/hide docs
PC-MI-0039-0004 | PC-MI-0039-0005 | PC-MI-0039-9000
Murphy, William B. (State Appellate Court) show/hide docs
PC-MI-0039-0007
O'Connell, Peter D. (State Appellate Court) show/hide docs
PC-MI-0039-0007
Riordan, Michael J (State Appellate Court) show/hide docs
PC-MI-0039-0006
Plaintiff's Lawyers Addis, Anlyn (Michigan) show/hide docs
PC-MI-0039-0001 | PC-MI-0039-0002 | PC-MI-0039-9000
Chaney, Nakisha N. (Michigan) show/hide docs
PC-MI-0039-0001 | PC-MI-0039-0002 | PC-MI-0039-9000
Labelle, Deborah A. (Michigan) show/hide docs
PC-MI-0039-0001 | PC-MI-0039-0002 | PC-MI-0039-0004 | PC-MI-0039-0008 | PC-MI-0039-9000
Macey, Edward Alan (Michigan) show/hide docs
PC-MI-0039-0001 | PC-MI-0039-0002 | PC-MI-0039-9000
McGehee, Cary S. (Michigan) show/hide docs
PC-MI-0039-0001 | PC-MI-0039-0002 | PC-MI-0039-9000
Pitt, Michael L. (Michigan) show/hide docs
PC-MI-0039-0001 | PC-MI-0039-0002 | PC-MI-0039-9000
Pitt, Peggy Goldberg (Michigan) show/hide docs
PC-MI-0039-0001 | PC-MI-0039-0002 | PC-MI-0039-9000
Prescott, Sarah (Michigan) show/hide docs
PC-MI-0039-9000
Rivers, Beth M. (Michigan) show/hide docs
PC-MI-0039-0002
Salvatore, Jennifer B. (Michigan) show/hide docs
PC-MI-0039-0001 | PC-MI-0039-0002 | PC-MI-0039-9000
Soble, Richard (Michigan) show/hide docs
PC-MI-0039-0001 | PC-MI-0039-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Antisdale, Terri L (Michigan) show/hide docs
PC-MI-0039-9000
Dean, Michael R. (Michigan) show/hide docs
PC-MI-0039-9000
Donnelly, Mark E. (Michigan) show/hide docs
PC-MI-0039-9000
Geminick, Lisa Clark (Michigan) show/hide docs
PC-MI-0039-9000
Giovanatti, Neil Anthony (New York) show/hide docs
PC-MI-0039-9000
Govorchin, A. Peter (Michigan) show/hide docs
PC-MI-0039-0004
Grossi, Christina M. (Michigan) show/hide docs
PC-MI-0039-0008 | PC-MI-0039-9000
Meingast, Heather S. (Michigan) show/hide docs
PC-MI-0039-9000
Murphy, Michael F (Michigan) show/hide docs
PC-MI-0039-9000
O'Dowd, Kevin J. (Michigan) show/hide docs
PC-MI-0039-9000
Odea, P. Kelly (Michigan) show/hide docs
PC-MI-0039-9000
Reasons, O.G. Paul (Michigan) show/hide docs
PC-MI-0039-9000
Reyes, Cori E. (Michigan) show/hide docs
PC-MI-0039-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -