In 1970, inmates at the Lucas County Jail filed a class-action suit against several officials associated with the jail. In 1971, the district court for the Northern District of Ohio (Judge Don J. Young) ordered defendants to update the lighting, ventilation, plumbing, paint, and the cell-locking ...
read more >
In 1970, inmates at the Lucas County Jail filed a class-action suit against several officials associated with the jail. In 1971, the district court for the Northern District of Ohio (Judge Don J. Young) ordered defendants to update the lighting, ventilation, plumbing, paint, and the cell-locking system but denied plaintiffs' request for damages. Jones v. Wittenberg, 330 F. Supp. 707 (N.D. Ohio 1971). The Lucas County Sheriff appealed, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. Jones v. Metzger, 456 F.2d 854 (6th Cir. 1972).
A few years later, plaintiffs filed a motion for defendants to show cause why they should not be held in contempt, and the district court appointed a Special Master to oversee defendants' compliance with the court's 1971 order. Jones v. Wittenberg, 73 F.R.D. 82 (N.D. Ohio 1976). After the court received reports from the monitor, it found defendants to be in violation of the 1971 order, ordered defendants to come into compliance with the order, and granted additional injunctive relief to plaintiffs. Jones v. Wittenberg, 440 F. Supp. 60 (N.D. Ohio 1977). The docket for this case is not available on PACER, and therefore our information ends with the last reported decision in 1977.
On November 5, 2014, the court ordered specific population restrictions, requiring that the general classified population of the jail not exceed 403 (the count to be taken at 3:00 p.m. each day) and further to ensure that the booking population not exceed 65 at any time.
In order to ensure compliance with the November 2014 order, on September 17, 2015 the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division issued a further order specifying release procedures to be followed by correctional authorities. 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138712.
On December 6, 2016, the Special Master filed a report with the court describing conditions and circumstances at the jail that were in need of judicial attention. The Court held a hearing on January 10, 2017, to address the findings from the report. While no substantive orders followed from that meeting, the monitoring has continued and the docket entries reflect continuing payments to the special master. As of April 25, 2019, the litigation is ongoing.
Lauren Cutson - 05/26/2005
Lakshmi Gopal - 02/11/2016
Chris Pollack - 04/25/2019
compress summary
