Case: DOJ Investigation of the South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice

3:22-cv-01221 | U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina

Filed Date: April 14, 2022

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

In October 2017, the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Justice and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of South Carolina (collectively, “the DOJ”) initiated an investigation of the South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice (SCDJJ) pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), and the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act. The investigation was focused on the B…

In October 2017, the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Justice and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of South Carolina (collectively, “the DOJ”) initiated an investigation of the South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice (SCDJJ) pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), and the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act. The investigation was focused on the Broad River Road Complex (BRRC), which was South Carolina’s long-term juvenile commitment facility.

After the DOJ's initial investigation, it issued a findings report on February 5, 2020, in which it concluded that it had reasonable cause to believe that the SCDJJ failed to keep the young people in its custody reasonably safe from assaults by other young people and that it used prolonged and punitive isolation in violation of CRIPA. The investigation did not reveal a reasonable basis to believe that the SCDJJ violated the ADA through its use of pre-sentencing secure evaluation centers. To complete its investigation, the DOJ conducted several onsite tours and interviews, and reviewed available video footage of instances related to the alleged violations. 

The DOJ continued its investigation and issued a second findings report on April 14, 2022, concluding that: 1) the conditions at the BRRC violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 2) the violations were pursuant to a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. More specifically, the DOJ found that the SCDJJ failed to keep young people reasonably safe from excessive force by staff at the BRRC. Furthermore, the DOJ concluded that through its policies and procedures, failure to train its staff, and inadequate investigations, the Department seriously harmed young people and placed them at substantial risk of serious harm by staff.

In addition to issuing its findings, the DOJ made several suggestions for remedial measures:

  1. improve the physical plan to ensure adequate surveillance and retain video to enable facility leadership to investigate allegations of abuse;
  2. conduct a staffing study to determine the appropriate staffing levels and staffing patterns to adequately supervise youth in the male living units, and make changes to staffing patterns as necessary;
  3. train staff on positive behavior management tools and de-escalation to reduce youth-on-youth violence and the use of isolation as a response to youth behavior;
  4. eliminate the use of isolation for minor misbehavior, protective custody, and mental health observation;
  5. replace long-term isolation with a short-term cool-down room in each housing unit for youth who are a threat to safety and develop policies to ensure that youth who are placed in the cool-down room are returned to the general population as soon as they are no longer a threat to safety;
  6. develop admissions screening protocols to identify youth who are vulnerable to victimization by other youth in the facility and create a specialized housing unit for these youth with access to equal recreational and educational services as youth in the general population;
  7. develop agreements with the state Department of Mental Health to ensure the prompt transfer of suicidal youth to appropriate placements for mental health treatment;
  8. revise the use of force policy to emphasize age-appropriate interactions and de-escalation techniques, make clear that force may be used only to prevent imminent potential harm to staff or others, require timely reporting and review of all uses of force, and require immediate training and corrective action where staff action does not conform to the policy;
  9. train staff on age-appropriate interactions with young people and adolescent development, de-escalation techniques, positive behavior management responses, and the revised use of force policy; and
  10. conduct timely investigations of allegations of staff-on-youth harms, including retention of all relevant video footage, and at the conclusion of each investigation, conduct necessary training to prevent future harms and impose discipline, as appropriate, for abuses of young people.

Also on April 14, 2022, the DOJ filed a complaint pursuant to the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act. On the same day, the DOJ filed a settlement agreement resolving its investigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. The matter was assigned to Judge Mary Geiger Lewis. In the agreement, the SCDJJ agreed to implement all of the DOJ's suggested remedial measures. The agreement also appointed an independent subject matter expert to monitor the agreement and make recommendations to ensure the SCDJJ’s compliance. Lastly, the agreement would expire in 5 years so long as SCDJJ attained substantial compliance with all provisions and maintained that compliance for one year. The parties jointly moved to conditionally dismiss the case and requested that the court retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement permitting reinstatement of the action in case of breach.

 

Summary Authors

Nina Gerdes (5/1/2023)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63237645/parties/united-states-v-south-carolina-department-of-juvenile-justice/


Judge(s)

Lewis, Mary Geiger (South Carolina)

Attorney for Defendant

Sneed, Robert M (South Carolina)

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

Davis, Clarence (South Carolina)

Dreiband, Eric S. (District of Columbia)

Wilson, Alan (South Carolina)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Re: Notice Regarding Investigation of South Carolina Department ofJuvenile Justice

DOJ Investigation of the South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice`

No Court

Feb. 5, 2020

Feb. 5, 2020

Notice Letter

Investigation of South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice's Broad River Road Complex

No Court

April 14, 2022

April 14, 2022

Findings Letter/Report
4-1

3:22-cv-01221

Exhibit A: Agreement Between The United States And The South Carolina Department

April 14, 2022

April 14, 2022

Settlement Agreement
1

3:22-cv-01221

Complaint

United States v. South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice

April 14, 2022

April 14, 2022

Complaint
4

3:22-cv-01221

Joint Motion for Conditional Dismissal Pursuant to Settlement Agreement

United States v. South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice

April 14, 2022

April 14, 2022

Pleading / Motion / Brief

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63237645/united-states-v-south-carolina-department-of-juvenile-justice/

Last updated Feb. 21, 2024, 3:13 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT against South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice, filed by United States of America. Service due by 7/13/2022(ahil) (Entered: 04/14/2022)

April 14, 2022

April 14, 2022

Clearinghouse
3

Summons Issued as to South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice. (ahil) (Entered: 04/14/2022)

April 14, 2022

April 14, 2022

PACER
4

JOINT MOTION FOR CONDITIONAL DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT by South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and United States of America. Response to Motion due by 4/28/2022. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Agreement Between The United States and The South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice)Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel.(ahil) (Entered: 04/14/2022)

1 Exhibit A: Agreement Between The United States And The South Carolina Department

View on Clearinghouse

April 14, 2022

April 14, 2022

Clearinghouse
5

Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by United States of America.(ahil) (Entered: 04/14/2022)

April 14, 2022

April 14, 2022

PACER
6

Case Reassigned to Judge Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr. Judge Honorable Sherri A Lydon no longer assigned to the case. (glev, ) (Entered: 04/18/2022)

April 18, 2022

April 18, 2022

PACER
7

Case Reassigned to Judge Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis. Judge Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr no longer assigned to the case. (glev, ) (Entered: 04/18/2022)

April 18, 2022

April 18, 2022

PACER

Case Reassigned CV

April 18, 2022

April 18, 2022

PACER
8

ORDER granting 4 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 4/20/2022.(cbru, ) (Entered: 04/20/2022)

April 20, 2022

April 20, 2022

RECAP
9

JUDGMENT dismissing this action without prejudice. (cbru, ) (Entered: 04/20/2022)

April 20, 2022

April 20, 2022

PACER
10

Transcript

Sept. 1, 2022

Sept. 1, 2022

PACER

Entry Deletion

Sept. 1, 2022

Sept. 1, 2022

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: South Carolina

Case Type(s):

Juvenile Institution

Disability Rights

Key Dates

Filing Date: April 14, 2022

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Plaintiff is the Special Litigation Section of the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division

Plaintiff Type(s):

U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

South Carolina (Columbia, Richland), State

Defendant Type(s):

Law-enforcement

Jurisdiction-wide

Corrections

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997 et seq.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.

Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act, 34 U.S.C. § 12601 (previously 42 U.S.C. § 14141)

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Due Process: Procedural Due Process

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Conditional Dismissal

Order Duration: 2022 - None

Content of Injunction:

Monitor/Master

Monitoring

Training

Issues

General:

Incident/accident reporting & investigations

Juveniles

Neglect by staff

Pattern or Practice

Restraints : physical

Policing:

Excessive force

Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:

Confinement/isolation

Solitary confinement/Supermax (conditions or process)

Assault/abuse by staff (facilities)

Assault/abuse by non-staff (facilities)

Disability and Disability Rights:

Mental Illness, Unspecified

Type of Facility:

Government-run