On December 28, 1990, juveniles confined by the South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice (formerly the Department of Youth Services) filed a class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina against the South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice. The class consisted of all juveniles who were or would be confined in the correctional facilities of the defendant. The South Carolina Protection and Advocacy System for the Handicapped and private counsel represented the class. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief along with damages, alleging that the conditions at the correctional facilities deprived juveniles of various statutory rights and violated the constitutional guarantees due process, equal protection, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.
The juvenile institutions in question were overcrowded, lacked adequate staffing, and lacked adequate fire safety. The correctional facilities were in disrepair, the disciplinary policies were implemented without regard to their psychological effect on the juveniles, and the juveniles were classified only by size and sex. Medical and mental health services were insufficient for the population of the facilities. Telephone communication, visitation, and access to courts and attorneys were all restricted. The Department of Juvenile Justice failed to provide a vocational education and any special education.
On January 25, 1995, the District Court (Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.) required the Department of Juvenile Justice to submit a remedial plan to the court within 120 days. The court held (1) that the conditions at the juvenile institutions violated the due process guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment, (2) that the juveniles had a constitutional right to personal safety, (3) that the juveniles had a constitutional right to medical services, (4) that the juveniles had a constitutional right to minimally adequate program services to teach principles essential to correcting conduct, (5) that the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 applied to juvenile correctional facilities, and (6) that states were given the opportunity in the first instance to correct the deficiencies. Alexander S. v. Boyd, 876 F. Supp. 773 (D.S.C. 1995).
On November 22, 1995, the District Court (Judge Anderson) granted the plaintiffs' motion for an award of attorneys' fees and costs. Alexander S. By and Through Bowers v. Boyd, 929 F. Supp. 925 (D.S.C. 1995). The U.S. Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit (per curiam) affirmed the District Court's decision on May 6, 1996. Alexander S. v. Boyd, 89 F.3d 827 (4th Cir. 1996).
On September 27, 1996, the District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to clarify that the juveniles transferred from the correctional facilities, which were the subject matter of the original litigation, remained members of the plaintiff class. The court further held that its November 22, 1995 order applied to all similarly situated facilities operated by the Department of Juvenile Justice, not just those facilities that were the explicit subject matter of the litigation. On June 27, 1997, the Fourth Circuit (per curiam) affirmed the District Court's decision. Davis v. Boyd, 116 F.3d 1473 (4th Cir. 1997).
On May 28, 1997, the Fourth Circuit held that the attorneys' fee limitations set forth in § 803(d) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, apply to juvenile facilities as well as adult facilities. The court remanded the case to the District Court to apply the attorneys' fees limitations when calculating the amount of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. Alexander S. v. Boyd, 113 F.3d 1373 (4th Cir. 1997).
On January 26, 1998, the Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari. Alexander S. v. Boyd, 522 U.S. 1090 (1998).
On August 16, 2004 and October 6, 2004, the District Court (Judge Anderson) denied a motion to reopen the case or for relief from the judgment on the grounds that the movant was not a party to the action and the time to reopen the judgment had long passed. On March 7, 2005, the Fourth Circuit (per curiam) affirmed the District Court's decision. Alexander S. v. Byars, 2005 WL 548250 (4th Cir. 2005).
Kaitlin Corkran - 05/29/2006
compress summary
