On August 10, 1994, after conducting a comprehensive investigation, the United States filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. The U.S. sued the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the governor, various executive officials, and the directors of several juvenile facilities under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997 et seq. The U.S., represented by the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S. Attorney's Office, asked the court for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. The U.S. claimed that the defendants failed to protect incarcerated juveniles in detention facilities and training schools from harm. Specifically, the U.S. alleged that the policies, procedures, and conditions at the juvenile facilities in Puerto Rico violated statutory rights, and the constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection.

The United States filed a proposed consent order simultaneously with the complaint, which was entered by the District Court (Judge Carmen Cerezo) as a partial judgment on October 6, 1994. The purpose of the consent order was to address the immediate issues of psychiatric care and overcrowding. The order provided deadlines for the establishment of a mental health care program at the juvenile facilities. The defendants were required to transfer all juveniles who were in need of in-patient mental health treatment to an in-patient facility, to develop a suicide prevention and intervention program, to train the staff that supervised the juveniles in suicidal and self-mutilating behaviors. Regarding the crowding issue, the defendants were required to take steps to reduce the number of juveniles confined in the facilities so that capacity was not exceeded 180 days after the consent decree was entered. The court appointed Orlando Martinez as the monitor to oversee compliance with the order.

On October 7, 1994, the United States submitted a comprehensive settlement agreement and filed a motion to enter the settlement agreement as an additional order. The agreement provided that the defendant would construct new facilities and remodel the existing facilities, develop a manual of the policies and procedures that govern the operation of the institutions, develop a handbook for the juveniles advising them of their rights and the rules of conduct, and ensure that the juvenile institutions were adequately staffed. It further provided for the development and implementation of a classification system to ensure that juveniles were placed in the least restrictive setting possible, for the development of an efficient and effective mental healthcare program, which would include a substance abuse program, and for the development of an adequate education program. Finally, the agreement provided that physical force was only to be used in justifiable self-defense, for the protection of others, or for the prevention of escape. Isolation was only deemed appropriate when a juvenile posed immediate threat to themselves or others. On the same day, the District Court (Judge Cerezo) granted the United States' motion to enter the settlement agreement as an order. The court retained jurisdiction to monitor implementation of the settlement agreement.

On March 12, 1997, the parties informed the Court that Congress had enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and that the statute required the Court make certain findings regarding its previous orders. The parties also advised the Court that they would continue to meet with the Court Monitor and arrive at an agreed upon motion with regard to the current conditions in the facilities and the need for continued judicial oversight. And on October 7, 1997, the United States filed a Motion to Enter Settlement Agreement as an Order of the Court and for a Finding of Compliance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act. By Order dated December 12, 1997, the District Court approved the Settlement Agreement.

Remediation continued from 1997 to 2007. On March 8, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to terminate the prospective relief order entered by the Court on December 12, 1997, pursuant to the PLRA. Under the PLRA, ordinarily such a motion is the basis for a stay of pending remediation after 30 days, but on April 10, the Court found good cause for postponement of the automatic stay until June 6, 2007, and set an evidentiary hearing for May 7, 2008. Defendants appealed this finding. The day before the hearing, the parties settled, and filed a motion setting out which parts of the prior settlement agreements would remain in effect and which would be terminated. The hearing then supplied the basis for approval of the remaining provisions.

In addition leaving in place a number of the provisions of the existing agreement, the parties implemented new requirements of sufficient direct care staffing to supervise in recreational, leisure and treatment activities with the juveniles; and new regulation of the response to allegations of abuse and mistreatment.

On April 28, 2008, the United States filed a Motion for Specific Performance and Supplemental Relief in an effort to protect youth from staffing shortages. The U.S. agreed to defer enforcement while the defendants pursued alternative measures. When the alternative measures proved ineffective, the two parties entered into a stipulation that required the hiring and training of additional staff and subsequent monitoring of the remedy. The Court approved the stipulation on January 8, 2009. After the United States determined the defendants failed to adequately implement the remediation steps, the United States filed a Motion for Contempt on July 2, 2009. The Court denied the motion, stating that the defendants showed reasonable diligence in attempting to fulfill the Stipulated Order. The United States appealed on May 21, 2010; the First Circuit dismissed the appeal. U.S. v. Puerto Rico, 642 F.3d 103 (1st Cir. 2011).

The defendants moved to terminate particular relief provisions of the parties’ Settlement Agreement in May 2010, August 2011, October 2012, May 2016, March 2018, and June 2019. The Court granted the first five motions to terminate their respective relief provisions, and the sixth motion is pending. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate two additional provisions in July 2014 because the defendants were in compliance per the monitoring report for the first quarter of 2014.

From 2009 until 2018, Warren F. Benton acted as the monitor issuing quarterly reports. In the second quarter of 2018, Kimberly B. Tandy assumed monitoring duties. The case is ongoing.

Kaitlin Corkran - 05/31/2006
Richard Jolly - 11/25/2014
Saeeda Joseph-Charles - 11/02/2016
Justin Hill - 11/03/2019


compress summary