On December 7, 2017, eighteen death row prisoners in the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC) alleged they have been kept in solitary confinement at the Broad River Correctional Institution (BRCI) for between nine and twenty years. Plaintiffs sued SCDC, its Director, and Wardens of ...
read more >
On December 7, 2017, eighteen death row prisoners in the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC) alleged they have been kept in solitary confinement at the Broad River Correctional Institution (BRCI) for between nine and twenty years. Plaintiffs sued SCDC, its Director, and Wardens of prisons within the SCDC under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments rights by being denied any meaningful opportunity to challenge their conditions of confinement. The prisoners alleged that they were placed in solitary confinement regardless of behavioral history or individual status. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III.
On December 22, 2017, the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction asserting that they were transferred from Lieber Correctional Institution to the Maximum Security Unit at Kirkland Reception and Evaluation Center, which provided even harsher conditions than those previously experienced in their solitary confinement at Lieber. On June 26, 2018, Magistrate Judge Rogers issued a Report and Recommendation that the plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction be denied. Judge Rogers found that the plaintiffs failed to make a showing that they were likely to succeed on the merits of their due process claim. The court adopted this recommendation and subsequently denied the motion on August 9, 2018. One of the plaintiffs then filed a motion for protective order on August 21, 2018 which was granted on August 23, 2018. On April 16, 2018, the plaintiffs amended their complaint.
The plaintiffs filed a second motion for preliminary injunction on May 21, 2019, along with a motion for temporary restraining order. On June 5, 2019 however, plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew both motions. They explain in the supporting documentation that defendants had worked with plaintiffs counsel to voluntarily make some changes to the facility that made the preliminary relief no longer necessary. They maintained that the ultimate question regarding conditions at BRCI remain valid and that they intended to continue pursuing the lawsuit.
The court issued a scheduling order on December 2, 2019 regarding discovery and hearing preparation. As of April 10, 2020, there have been no other entries in the docket. This case is ongoing.
Abigail DeHart - 08/08/2018
Alex Moody - 04/10/2020
compress summary
